IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i8p2750-d789840.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Assessment of Human Factors of Logistic Handling of Deliveries at an LNG Terminal

Author

Listed:
  • Agnieszka A. Tubis

    (Department of Technical Systems Operation and Maintenance, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland)

  • Emilia T. Skupień

    (Department of Technical Systems Operation and Maintenance, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland)

  • Stefan Jankowski

    (Department of Maritime Simulation, Faculty of Navigation, Maritime University of Szczecin, 70-500 Szczecin, Poland)

  • Jacek Ryczyński

    (Faculty of Security Sciences, Institute of Safety Engineering, Military University of Land Forces (MULF), 51-147 Wrocław, Poland)

Abstract

There has been growing interest in fuel supply chains regarding transport safety and LNG reloading. This is due to the increasing consumption of this gas in the economy to create sustainable transport systems. Poland is in the phase of energy transformation, which increases the demand for this type of alternative fuel. For this reason, the number of logistic operations carried out by Polish sea terminals handling LNG deliveries is increasing. This article aims to present a method for assessing the risk of adverse events occurring during the logistic handling of LNG deliveries at a port terminal and its implementation for a selected LNG terminal in Poland. Fuzzy logic methodology was used to assess the risk due to the lack of access to specific historical data on identified events. The conducted analysis considers the guidelines applicable at the LNG terminal, described in the Terminal Operation Manual , and the specific reloading conditions occurring in the tested Polish gas terminal. Based on the analysis conducted in cooperation with experts, scenarios of possible adverse events were identified and subjected to a risk assessment. Based on the conducted analysis, those events were distinguished and their risk of occurrence.

Suggested Citation

  • Agnieszka A. Tubis & Emilia T. Skupień & Stefan Jankowski & Jacek Ryczyński, 2022. "Risk Assessment of Human Factors of Logistic Handling of Deliveries at an LNG Terminal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-24, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:8:p:2750-:d:789840
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/8/2750/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/8/2750/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Noh, Yeelyong & Chang, Kwangpil & Seo, Yutaek & Chang, Daejun, 2014. "Risk-based determination of design pressure of LNG fuel storage tanks based on dynamic process simulation combined with Monte Carlo method," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 76-82.
    2. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    3. Evangelos Bellos & Georgios Chatzistelios & Angeliki Deligianni & Vrassidas Leopoulos, 2021. "Stakeholders and Risks in Liquified Natural Gas Bunkering Projects: The Hidden Link," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Lauro J. Martinez & James H. Lambert, 2010. "Prioritising sources of risk at liquefied natural gas storage terminals in Mexico," International Journal of Business Continuity and Risk Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(4), pages 363-383.
    5. Jacek Ryczyński & Agnieszka A. Tubis, 2021. "Tactical Risk Assessment Method for Resilient Fuel Supply Chains for a Military Peacekeeping Operation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-24, August.
    6. Xie, Cheng & Huang, Liwen & Wang, Rui & Deng, Jian & Shu, Yaqing & Jiang, Dan, 2022. "Research on quantitative risk assessment of fuel leak of LNG-fuelled ship during lock transition process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Artur Kierzkowski & Agnieszka A. Tubis, 2023. "Transportation Systems Modeling, Simulation and Analysis with Reference to Energy Supplying," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-6, April.
    2. Hongjun Fan & Hossein Enshaei & Shantha Gamini Jayasinghe, 2022. "Formation of Dataset for Fuzzy Quantitative Risk Assessment of LNG Bunkering SIMOPs," Data, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-13, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shital A. Thekdi & James H. Lambert, 2012. "Decision Analysis and Risk Models for Land Development Affecting Infrastructure Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(7), pages 1253-1269, July.
    2. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    3. Ozgur Satici & Esra Satici, 2024. "Theoretical semi-quantitative risk assessment methodology for tunnel design and construction processes," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 15(7), pages 3385-3405, July.
    4. Chen, Fuzhong & Hsu, Chien-Lung & Lin, Arthur J. & Li, Haifeng, 2020. "Holding risky financial assets and subjective wellbeing: Empirical evidence from China," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    5. Niël Almero Krüger & Natanya Meyer, 2021. "The Development of a Small and Medium-Sized Business Risk Management Intervention Tool," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-14, July.
    6. Johnson, Caroline A. & Flage, Roger & Guikema, Seth D., 2021. "Feasibility study of PRA for critical infrastructure risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    7. Kasai, Naoya & Matsuhashi, Shigemi & Sekine, Kazuyoshi, 2013. "Accident occurrence model for the risk analysis of industrialfacilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 71-74.
    8. J. C. Helton & F. J. Davis, 2002. "Illustration of Sampling‐Based Methods for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 591-622, June.
    9. Michael Greenberg & Paul Lioy & Birnur Ozbas & Nancy Mantell & Sastry Isukapalli & Michael Lahr & Tayfur Altiok & Joseph Bober & Clifton Lacy & Karen Lowrie & Henry Mayer & Jennifer Rovito, 2013. "Passenger Rail Security, Planning, and Resilience: Application of Network, Plume, and Economic Simulation Models as Decision Support Tools," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1969-1986, November.
    10. Felipe Aguirre & Mohamed Sallak & Walter Schön & Fabien Belmonte, 2013. "Application of evidential networks in quantitative analysis of railway accidents," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(4), pages 368-384, August.
    11. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    12. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    13. Julie E. Shortridge & Benjamin F. Zaitchik, 2018. "Characterizing climate change risks by linking robust decision frameworks and uncertain probabilistic projections," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 525-539, December.
    14. Hou, Tianfeng & Nuyens, Dirk & Roels, Staf & Janssen, Hans, 2019. "Quasi-Monte Carlo based uncertainty analysis: Sampling efficiency and error estimation in engineering applications," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    15. Katherine Emma Lonergan & Salvatore Francesco Greco & Giovanni Sansavini, 2023. "Ensuring/insuring resilient energy system infrastructure," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 625-638, December.
    16. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2006. "On the Definition of Vulnerabilities in Measuring Risks to Infrastructures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 293-296, April.
    17. Angelo Panno & Annalisa Theodorou & Giuseppe Alessio Carbone & Evelina De Longis & Chiara Massullo & Gianluca Cepale & Giuseppe Carrus & Claudio Imperatori & Giovanni Sanesi, 2021. "Go Greener, Less Risk: Access to Nature Is Associated with Lower Risk Taking in Different Domains during the COVID-19 Lockdown," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-17, September.
    18. Peng Ye, 2022. "Remote Sensing Approaches for Meteorological Disaster Monitoring: Recent Achievements and New Challenges," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-28, March.
    19. Denitsa Angelova & Andrea Bigano & Francesco Bosello & Shouro Dasgupta & Silvio Giove, 2023. "Assessing systemic climate change risk by country. Reflections from the use of composite indicators," Working Papers 2023: 28, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    20. Ioanna Ioannou & Jaime E. Cadena & Willy Aspinall & David Lange & Daniel Honfi & Tiziana Rossetto, 2022. "Prioritization of hazards for risk and resilience management through elicitation of expert judgement," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(3), pages 2773-2795, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:8:p:2750-:d:789840. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.