Abstract
Regulatory health, safety, and environment (HSE) interventions have an impact on both costs and benefits for the industry. It is common for the regulators to evaluate such interventions by providing a comparison of costs and benefits as a basis for decision-making. Fulfilling an assignment for the Norwegian government, two consulting companies proposed a methodology for regulatory evaluation in the petroleum industry. This methodology acknowledges that uncertainty must have a higher weight than given through traditional cost–benefit analyses, but it is still to a great extent based on the use of expected values. We question this use of modified cost–benefit analyses for providing decision support in contexts where uncertainty is the dominating attribute. Furthermore, we argue that the decision-makers should be able to take a dynamic approach, where the chosen method should fit its context. As an example, we present a framework in line with such a dynamic approach. The article is an extended version of an ESREL conference article.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Abrahamsen EB, Aven T, Vinnem JE, Wiencke HS (2004) Safety management and the use of expected values. Risk Decis Policy 9:347–357
Abrahamsen EB, Wiencke HS, Kristensen V, Årstad I (2013) Framework for valuation of socioeconomic consequences of acute pollution to sea. Magma 1:54–59 (Norwegian only)
Abrahamsen EB, Abrahamsen HB, Milazzo MF, Selvik JT (2017) Using the ALARP principle for safety management in the energy production sector of chemical industry. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 169(2018):160–165
Aven T (2011) Quantitative risk assessment: The scientific platform. Cambridge University, Cambridge
Aven T (2016) Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on their foundation. Eur J Oper Res 253(1):1–13
Aven T, Abrahamsen EB (2007) On the use of cost-benefit analysis in ALARP processes. Int J Perform Eng 3:345
Aven T, Flage R (2009) Use of decision criteria based on expected values to support decision-making in a production assurance and safety setting. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 94:1491–1498
Aven T, Renn O (2010) Risk management and governance. Springer, Berlin
Aven T, Vinnem JE (2007) Risk management: With applications from the offshore petroleum industry. Springer, London
Baram MS (2014) The US regulatory regime for preventing major accidents in offshore operations. In: Lindøe PH, Baram M, Renn O (eds) Risk governance of offshore oil and gas operations. Cambridge University Press. New York, p 154–187
Binder M (2002) The role of risk and cost-benefit analysis in determining quarantine measures. Productivity commission staff research paper. AusInfo, Canberra
DNV GL and Menon (2015) Analyses of consequences, costs and benefits of HSE requirements and measures in the petroleum industry. Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, DNV GL AS, Stavanger, Norway (Norwegian only)
EAI (2006) Risk and uncertainty in cost benefit analysis. A toolbox paper for the Environmental Assessment Institute. Danish Government, Copenhagen
Engen OA, Hagen J, Kringen J, Kaasen K, Lindøe PH, Selnes PO, Vinnem JE (2013) Audit strategy and HSE regulations in the Norwegian petroleum industry. Norwegian Government, Stavanger
EUR-LEX (2015) The precautionary principle. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al32042. Accessed 12 Dec 2016
Fischhoff B (2015) The realities of risk-cost-benefit analysis. Science 350:6516
Government Agency for Financial Management (2014) Guidance for socioeconomic analyses. Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad and Bjørke AS, Bergen (Norwegian only)
Hallegatte S (2006) A cost-benefit analysis in of the New Orleans flood protection system. Report for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
Hayes J (2014) A new policy direction in Australian offshore safety regulation. In: Lindøe PH, Baram M, Renn O (eds) Risk governance of offshore oil and gas operations. Cambridge University Press, New York, p 188–211
Helle I, Ahtianien H, Luoma E, Hänninen M, Kuikka S (2015) A probabilistic approach for a cost-benefit analysis of oil spill management under uncertainty: a Bayesian network model for the Gulf of Finland. J Environ Manage 158:122–132
Hopkins A (2015) The cost-benefit hurdle for safety case regulation. Saf Sci 77:95–101
Kringen J (2014) Contested terrains in risk regulation. In: Lindøe PH, Baram M, Renn O (eds) Risk governance of offshore oil and gas operations. Cambridge University Press, New York, p 274–308
National Commission (2011) Deep Water. The Gulf oil disaster and the future of offshore drilling. Report to the President. National Commission on the BP deepwater horizon oil spill and offshore drilling. https://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/oilspill/20121211005728/http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DEEPWATER_ReporttothePresident_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2016
NOG (2014) Consultation response: proposed changes to the HSE regulations as regards evacuation and more. http://www.ptil.no/getfile.php/PDF/H%C3%B8ringer/16%20NOROG.PDF. Accessed 12 Dec 2016
NORSOK (2010) Z-013 Risk and emergency preparedness assessment. Lysaker, NORSOK
Norwegian Ministry of Finance (2014) R-109/14 Principles and demands by development for socioeconomic analysis. Norwegian Government, Oslo
Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2006) Parliamentary report no. 12, 2005-2006. Health, environment and safety in the petroleum industry. Oslo. Norwegian Government. Norwegian only
Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2011) Parliamentary report no. 29, 2010-2011. Joint responsibility for a good and decent working community. Oslo. Norwegian Government. Norwegian only
PSA (2013a) Consultation memorandum and impact assessments: proposed alterations in the HSE regulations as regards evacuation, as well as decisions on a more comprehensive and systematic enforcement of current legislation in this area in the light of available knowledge. Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authorities. Norwegian only. http://www.ptil.no/getfile.php/Regelverket/Endringer_2014/H%C3%B8ringsnotat%20og%20konsekvensvurderinger.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2016
PSA (2013b) Regulations relating to health, safety and the environment in the petroleum activities and at certain onshore facilities (The framework regulations). Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authorities. http://www.psa.no/framework-hse/category403.html. Accessed 12 Dec 2016
PSA (2016) The risk concept in the petroleum industry. Norwegian petroleum safety authorities. Norwegian only. http://www.ptil.no/risiko-og-risikoforstaaelse/notat-om-risikobegrepet-i-petroleumsvirksomheten-article11884-823.html. Accessed 12 Dec 2016
SRA (2015) Committee on foundations of risk analysis—SRA glossary. http://www.sra.org/sites/default/files/pdf/SRA-glossary-approved22june2015-x.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2016
Talarico L, Reniers G (2016) Risk-informed decision making of safety investments by using the disproportion factor. Process Saf Environ Prot 100:117–130
Uk HSE (2001) Reducing risks, protecting people. HSE’s decision-making process. Crown, Norwich
UK HSE (2017) HSE principles for cost benefit analysis (CBA) in support of ALARP decisions. http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpcba.htm. Accessed 31 Aug 2017
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Torleif Husebø for the useful comments. We are also grateful to three anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions of this article, and to two anonymous reviewers for their remarks to an earlier version of this article. The work has been partly funded by the Norwegian Research Council—as a part of the Petromaks 2 program (Grant number 228335/E30). The support is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sørskår, L.I.K., Abrahamsen, E.B. On how to manage uncertainty when considering regulatory HSE interventions. EURO J Decis Process 5, 97–116 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-017-0073-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-017-0073-0