IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijcist/v8y2012i4p306-325.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk-benefit-cost prioritisation of independent protection layers for a liquefied natural gas terminal

Author

Listed:
  • Lauro J. Martinez
  • James H. Lambert

Abstract

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) operations and facilities are growing in scale and number in many countries driven by the key role of natural gas for increasing regional and local energy security, particularly for electric power generation. While the industry has achieved remarkably high levels of safety, the reduction of residual risks associated with the unloading, storage and distribution in LNG terminals continues to be a top priority. This paper develops a risk benefit cost framework to support facilities planners in the selection and prioritisation of independent protection layers (IPLs), which are identified by an existing commonly adopted methodology known as layer of protection analysis (LOPA). Six incident scenarios are used to analyse and compare feasible process and equipment configurations that correspond to several IPLs. A benefit and cost comparison of the IPLs is made based on estimates of the potential reductions of the facility unavailability and the annualised costs of implementation. A tutorial example suggests how LNG facility managers would use the developed framework beyond the typical LOPA analysis to select and prioritise IPLs and other risk reduction activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Lauro J. Martinez & James H. Lambert, 2012. "Risk-benefit-cost prioritisation of independent protection layers for a liquefied natural gas terminal," International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(4), pages 306-325.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijcist:v:8:y:2012:i:4:p:306-325
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=50106
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:ids:ijcist:v:8:y:2012:i:4:p:306-325. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=58 .

    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.