Environment Systems and Decisions

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 150–159 | Cite as

Nonparametric estimation of petroleum accident risk to improve environmental protection

  • Kenneth David StrangEmail author
  • Roy L. Nersesian


The researchers collected and examined 10 years of petroleum-related accidents in the state capital of New York (NY) to develop a preliminary model (N = 1,005). The goal of the research was to propose an evidence-driven methodology to inform urban environmental policy making and emergency preparedness planning. Albany, NY, USA, was a preferentially selected sample site since it was a large city in an environmentally sensitive region with controversial oil–gas fracking policies being debated within government. The objective of the study was to develop a predictive model from petroleum accident data using nonparametric inferential statistical techniques to avoid the constraints inherent of normal distribution assumptions. A statistically significant model was formulated and tested, which indicated that the probability of petroleum accidents in the gas–oil industry was almost six times higher than their occurrence by people in other groups, such as electricity generation, transportation, hospitals, universities, warehouses, government, businesses, and residences.


Uncertainty quantification Oil and gas industry Petroleum accidents Risk mitigation Urban planning Nonparametric inferential statistics 


  1. Amjady N, Vahidinasab V (2013) Security-constrained self-scheduling of generation companies in day-ahead electricity markets considering financial risk. Energy Conver Manag 65(1):164–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertrand JWM, Fransoo JC (2002) Operations management research methodologies using quantitative modeling. Int J Op Prod Manag 22(2):241–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Branigin RD (2011) Toward a better model for managing scheduling delays and soft cost claims under builders risk insurance policies. Brief 40(4):1–13Google Scholar
  4. Catalao JPS, Pousinho HMI, Contreras J (2012) Optimal hydro scheduling and offering strategies considering price uncertainty and risk management. Energy 37(1):237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS (2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  6. Diamantoulaki I, Angelides DC (2013) Risk-based maintenance scheduling using monitoring data for moored floating breakwaters. Struct Saf 41(2):107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellram LM (1996) The use of the case study method in logistics research. J Bus Logist 17(2):93–138Google Scholar
  8. Fleiss JL, Nee JCM, Landis JR (1979) Large sample variance of kappa in the case of different sets of raters. Psychol Bull 86(1):974–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghadikolaei HM, Ahmadi A, Aghaei J, Najafi M (2012) Risk constrained self-scheduling of hydro/wind units for short term electricity markets considering intermittency and uncertainty. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(7):4734–4743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodwin Y, Strang KD (2012) Socio-cultural and multi-disciplinary perceptions of risk. Int J Risk Conting Manag 1(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hari Nugroho DS (2010). Risk-based inspection scheduling planning for intelligent agent in the autonomous fault management. AIP Conf ProcGoogle Scholar
  12. Jun DH, Rayes KE (2011) Fast and accurate risk evaluation for scheduling large-scale construction projects. J Comput Civil Eng 25(5):407–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kazempour SJ, Moghaddam MP (2011) Risk-constrained self-scheduling of a fuel and emission constrained power producer using rolling window procedure. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 33(2):359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krajewski LJ, Ritzman LP, Malhotra MK (2010) Operations management, 9th edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  15. Li J, Liu L, Ren J, Duan H, Zheng L (2012) Behavior of urban residents toward the discarding of waste electrical and electronic equipment: a case study in Baoding, China. Waste Manag Res 30(11):1187–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mangan J, Lalwani C, Gardner B (2004) Combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies in logistics research. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 34(7):565–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Markowitz H (1952) Portfolio selection. J Financ 7(1):77–91Google Scholar
  18. Matlow AG, Wray R, Richardson SE (2012) Attitudes and beliefs, not just knowledge, influence the effectiveness of environmental cleaning by environmental service workers. Am J Infect Control 40(3):260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mendelssohn IA, Andersen AL, Baltz DM, Caffey RH, Carman KR, Fleeger JW, Joye SB, Lin Q, Maltby E, Overton EB, Rozas LR (2010) Oil impacts on coastal wetlands: implications for the Mississippi river delta ecosystem after the deepwater horizon oil spill. Bioscience 62(6):562–574Google Scholar
  20. Nersesian R (2012) Energy risk management. Palisades, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  21. New York State Navigation (NYS) Law, New York State Law (2009)Google Scholar
  22. Nysdec.(2013). Chemical and pollution control [petroleum and petroleum spill data from 1978 to 2013]. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Division of Mineral ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  23. Pousinho HMI, Mendes VMF, Catalao JPS (2012) Scheduling of a hydro producer considering head-dependency, price scenarios and risk-aversion. Energy Convers Manag 56(1):96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Simchi-Levi D, Chen X, Bramel J (2005) The logic of logistics: theory, algorithms, and applications for logistics and supply chain management, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Simonovi SP (2010) Systems approach to management of disasters: methods and applications. Wiley, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Somasundaram P, Babu MR (2012) Risk invoked self-scheduling of a Genco in the day-ahead energy market. J Eng Appl Sci 7(2):136–146Google Scholar
  27. Sparks, R. (2013, July 15). Investigators find bodies of more victims. Make progress identifying remains. Lac-Mégantic: what we know, what we don’t. Associated Press pp. A6–A7Google Scholar
  28. Stemler SE (2004) A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Pract Assess Res Eval 9(4):66–78Google Scholar
  29. Strang KD (2011) Applying multidisciplinary logistic techniques to improve operations productivity at a mine. Logist Res J 3(4):207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strang KD (2012a) Applied financial nonlinear programming models for decision making. Int J Appl Decis Sci 5(4):370–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Strang KD (2012b) Importance of verifying queue model assumptions before planning with simulation software. Eur J Oper Res 218(2):493–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Strang KD (2012c) Logistic planning with nonlinear goal programming models in spreadsheets. Int J Appl Logist 2(4):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Strang KD (2013a) Planning for hurricane Isaac using probability theory in a linear programming model. Int J Risk Conting Manag 2(1):51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Strang KD (2013b) Risk management research design ideologies, strategies, methods and techniques. Int Risk Conting Manag 2(2):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Taleb NN (2007) The black swan. The impact of the highly improbable. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Thompson H (2012) Fracking boom spurs environmental audit: as hydraulic fracturing unlocks new gas reserves, researchers struggle to understand its health implications. Nature 485(5):557–560Google Scholar
  37. Vanasselt MBA, Renn O (2011) Risk governance. Risk Res J 14(4):431–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vogt PW, Gardner DC, Haeffele LM (2012) When to use what research design. Guilford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Witter RZ, Mckenzie L, Stinson KE, Scott K, Newman LS, Adgate J (2013) The use of health impact assessment for a community undergoing natural gas development. Am J Public Health 103(6):1002–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Worthington D (2009) Reflections on queue modelling from the last 50 years. J Oper Res Soc 60(1):S83–S92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business and EconomicsState University of New YorkQueensburyUSA
  2. 2.Monmouth UniversityWest Long BranchUSA

Personalised recommendations