Skip to main content
Log in

On how to manage uncertainty when considering regulatory HSE interventions

  • Original Article
  • Published:
EURO Journal on Decision Processes

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Aven T (2011) Quantitative risk assessment: The scientific platform. Cambridge University, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aven T (2016) Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on their foundation. Eur J Oper Res 253(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven T, Abrahamsen EB (2007) On the use of cost-benefit analysis in ALARP processes. Int J Perform Eng 3:345

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven T, Renn O (2010) Risk management and governance. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aven T, Vinnem JE (2007) Risk management: With applications from the offshore petroleum industry. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins A (2015) The cost-benefit hurdle for safety case regulation. Saf Sci 77:95–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Norwegian Ministry of Finance (2014) R-109/14 Principles and demands by development for socioeconomic analysis. Norwegian Government, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uk HSE (2001) Reducing risks, protecting people. HSE’s decision-making process. Crown, Norwich

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leif Inge K. Sørskår.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-017-0073-0

Keywords

Navigation