Page 230 - Pipeline Risk Management Manual Ideas, Techniques, and Resources

Sabotage module 9/20?
Example 9.5: Medium threat of sabotage The company employs security managers and consultants
but no guards or direct response personnel. Two points are
In the pipeline system considered here, the owner company awarded for “security force” for the use of the managers and
has a history of violent labor disputes. Although there have not consultants. Any efforts to publicize the company’s intent to
been any such disputes recently, altercations in the past have protect facilities and prosecute attackers is not thought to be
involved harassment of employees and sabotage of facilities. effective. Government threats of apprehension and punishment
One such dispute coincides with the construction period of this are similarly not seen as a deterrent to the saboteurs.
section of pipeline. Similar forces seem to still be present and The section being evaluated has two surface facilities. These
the current labor contract will be renegotiated within the year. facilities are protected by electric fences (at least 75% reliabil-
The evaluator scores the potential risk as between “medium” ity), remotely operated video surveillance cameras, SCADA,
and ‘‘low’’ based on the above information. As negotiations and trained guard dogs. All are judged to be effective anti-sabo-
begin, the company has made extra efforts to communicate to tage methods. The video surveillance or problems spotted with
labor representatives its intention to protect facilities and pros- the SCADA prompt a quick response by local authorities or by
ecute to the fullest extent possible any attacks against facilities. a company helicopter. Points are awarded for these items.
This communication has been verbal, documented as meeting Where the pipeline route is not obscured by dense vegeta-
minutes, and in the form ofposters in employee areas. The com- tion, digitized satellite views are transmitted to company head-
pany has alerted local law enforcement of their concerns. The quarters twice a week. These views will detect movements
evaluator awards points for resolve and for fear of punishment. of people, equipment, etc., within 1 mile either side of the
There are no cooperative efforts with neighboring industries. pipeline. While not a continuous surveillance, these snapshots
Points are also awarded for items in the operations aspect as will alert the company to activity in the vicinity, perhaps spot-
follows: ID badges, employee screening, and controlled access. ting a staging area for attacks or the creation of an attack route
In the section being evaluated, one aboveground metering/ block to the line. The evaluator considers this to he an addition to the
valve station is present. It has a standard protection package that patrolling efforts and awards additional points for this effort.
includes a chain-link fence with barbed wire on top, heavy chains Additional points are awarded for other mitigation measures:
and locks on gates and equipment, signs, and a SCADA system.
By developing a point scale and applying a relative risk Design-A high level of support is sought for all future con-
assessment to the situation, the overall risk of pipeline failure is struction in this area. This company has much experience
judged to have increased by about 40% by including the threat with the sabotage risk. A special anti-sabotage team assists in
of sabotage. This includes a 30% increase in failure probability the design of new facilities and coordinates efforts to obtain
coupled with a 15% increase in potential consequences, as support from pipeline neighbors.
measured by the evaluator’s assessment model. Construction-Private guards are hired to protect job sites
24 hours per day. Construction inspectors are trained to spot
evidence of sabotage and are experienced (and effective) in
_____
~~ ~ ~~ ~~
Example 9.6: High threat ofsabotage dealing with the local workforce and property owners. The
inspection staff is increased so that at least two sets of eyes
In this evaluation, the pipeline ownedoperator has installed a monitor all activities.
pipeline in a developing country with a long history of political Operations-Operations mitigation measures include use of
unrest. The routing of the line takes it close to rural villages ID badges, employee screening, controlled access, and
whose inhabitants are openly antigovernment and, because of the employee awareness training.
government’s association with the company, anti-pipeline. In the
past 2 years, pipeline service has been routinely disrupted by acts New scores are calculated based on apoint system developed
of sabotage on aboveground facilities and on cased installations by the company. The high attack potential has been partially
below ground. The potential for attack is scored as high. offset by the thorough mitigation efforts. Nonetheless, the
In the last 6 months, the company has embarked on a commu- results of the sabotage assessment taken together with the basic
nity assistance program, spending funds to improve conditions in risk assessment, imply that overall risk has more than tripled
the villages along the pipeline route. There is evidence that these due to the high threat of sabotage.
communities, while not tempering their hostility toward the gov-
ernment, are beginning to view the pipeline company as a poten- Including the threat of sabotage in the risk evaluation is done
tial ally instead of a partner of the government. Such evidence by considering this threat as an addition to the existing risk pic-
comes from informal interviews and recent interactions between ture. As seen from the examples, inclusion of this special threat
pipeline employees and villagers. Company security officers can have a tremendous impact on the risk picture, as is consis-
have a close working relationship with government intelligence tent with the reality of the situation. Before adding in the risk of
sources. These sources confirm that perceptions might be chang- sabotage, the threats to a pipeline are predominantly from slow-
ing in the villages. There have been no attacks in the last 4 months acting or rare forces of nature (corrosion, earth movements,
(but it was not unusual for attacks to be spaced several months fatigue, etc.) and random errors or omissions (outside damage,
apart). Points are awarded for a community partnering program incorrect operations, etc.). The sabotage risk, on the other hand,
and intelligence gathering. Based on the recent intelligence and represents a highly directed and specific force. Consequently
the observed trend in attacks, the evaluator may be able to score then, this can represent a greater risk to the pipeline than any
the attack potential as less than “high at some point in the future. other single factor. The increased risk is due primarily to the
As more evidence continues to confirm the reduced potential, the increased probability of a failure-and possibly a more likely
scores will be reevaluated. higher consequence failure scenario.