Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cybersecurity and Environmental Impact: Insurance as a Better Protection Mechanism for Liability from Incidents in Oil and Gas Operations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover InsurTech: A Legal and Regulatory View

Part of the book series: AIDA Europe Research Series on Insurance Law and Regulation ((ERSILR,volume 1))

Abstract

The globalisation of environmental risk poses a mounting challenge to policy makers. We are nowadays faced with a situation whereby the rules of responsibility for harm production remain underdeveloped, in spite of the negotiation and implementation of numerous international environmental agreements. In addition, those agreements lack detailed provisions stipulating the responsibility of state and non-state actors for environmental damage and state practice often reflects a widespread reluctance to pursue environmental liability through inter-state claims and a preference for increasing the importance of private liability attached to operators of risk-bearing activities as the main mechanism for progressing environmental liability.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Noussia (2011), pp. 98–107.

  2. 2.

    Mason (2002), pp. 1–3; Sandvik and Suikkari (1997), pp. 64–65.

  3. 3.

    Kellner et al. (2010).

  4. 4.

    Noussia (2011), pp. 98–107.

  5. 5.

    Focus Magazine (2010), p. 3.

  6. 6.

    Kotula, Insurance, pollution exclusions, and the Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico oil spill, http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/emergingissues/blogs/gulf_oil_spill.aspx.

  7. 7.

    King (2010), p. 3.

  8. 8.

    Focus Magazine (2010), p. 3.

  9. 9.

    Deepwater Horizon Unified Command, U.S. Scientific Team Draws on New Data, Multiple Scientific Methodologies to Reach Updated Estimate of Oil Flows from BP’s Well, June 15, 2010, at http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/661583; Winter (2010); King (2010), p. 3.

  10. 10.

    Pagliery (2015).

  11. 11.

    Pagliery (2015).

  12. 12.

    Its Annex I, concerned with oil pollution, contains detailed technical provisions designed to eliminate intentional discharges. MARPOL is credited as instrumental in significantly reducing discharges from marine transportation; Mason (2002), p. 4.

  13. 13.

    Mason (2002), p. 4.

  14. 14.

    Mason (2002), pp. 6–7; Little and Hamilton (1997), pp. 554–557; Gauci (1999), pp. 29–36.

  15. 15.

    Noussia (2011), pp. 98–107.

  16. 16.

    Jacobsson (2007), pp. 138–139.

  17. 17.

    Mason (2002), pp. 7–8; Wetterstein (1994), pp. 230–247.

  18. 18.

    Mason (2002), p. 7; International Maritime Organisation (1996).

  19. 19.

    Mason (2002), p. 8.

  20. 20.

    Mason (2002), pp. 11–12; International Maritime Organisation (1996), pp. 48, 69.

  21. 21.

    Mason (2002), pp. 11–12; International Maritime Organisation (1996), pp. 48, 69.

  22. 22.

    Jacobsson (2007), pp. 138–139.

  23. 23.

    Jacobsson (2007), p. 141.

  24. 24.

    Mason (2002), p. 20; Little (1998), pp. 554–567; Wren (1999), pp. 335–349.

  25. 25.

    Mason (2002), p. 20; Wu (2001).

  26. 26.

    Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, Recommendations to the President on Protecting American Cyber Interests through International Engagement, 31/5/2018 https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/282224.pdf.

  27. 27.

    King (2010), pp. 15–20.

  28. 28.

    Noussia (2011), pp. 98–107, 101–103.

  29. 29.

    Dynes et al. (2008), p. 27.

  30. 30.

    Department of Energy and Climate Change, ‘Offshore oil and gas in the UK: an independent review of the regulatory regime’ (December 2011, U.K.) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/offshore-oil-and-gas-in-the-uk-independent-review-of-the-regulatory-regime.

  31. 31.

    Nordquist and Fausser (2014), p. 127.

  32. 32.

    Directive 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 June 2013 on the safety of offshore oil and gas operations and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, OJ L 178 of 28.6.2013, p. 66.

  33. 33.

    Council Decision of 17 December 2012 on the accession of the European Union to the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution resulting from exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf and the seabed and its subsoil (2013/5/EU).

  34. 34.

    Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons, OJ L 164 of 30.6.1994, p. 3.

  35. 35.

    Council Decision of 17 December 2012, supra note 55 at p. 13.

  36. 36.

    Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions under Article 14(2) of Directive 2004/35/CE on the environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, 12/10/2010, COM(2010) 581 final.

  37. 37.

    Nordquist and Fausser (2014), pp. 133–139.

  38. 38.

    World Energy Council (2016).

  39. 39.

    Cope and Reynolds (2015), pp. 86–89.

  40. 40.

    CIR, ‘Lloyd’s: Offshore energy underwriting ‘out of step” (21 September 2011) accessed 14 June 2018 at http://www.cirmagazine.com/cir/lloyds-offshore-energy-underwriting-out-of-step.php; ‘Bolt criticises energy underwriters’ (22 September 2011) Insurance Insight.

  41. 41.

    In a letter to all CEOs and active underwriters dated 29 July 2011 Mr Bolt stated that it is ‘a requirement for 2012 plan approval that all Energy Liabilities written at Lloyd’s are underwritten in stand-alone policies; compliance with this requirement is a precondition of Lloyd’s approval of Syndicate Business Plans for Energy Liability.’

  42. 42.

    Cameron (2012), pp. 209–210.

  43. 43.

    Faure and Wang (2016), pp. 236–265.

  44. 44.

    Sutherland (2015).

  45. 45.

    Sutherland (2015).

  46. 46.

    https://www.pwc.com.au/publications/cyber-savvy-securing-operational-technology-assets.html.

References

  • Cameron P (2012) Liability for catastrophic risk in the oil and gas industry. IELR 6:207–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Cope C, Reynolds I (2015) “Breaking Bad” in cyber space: a challenge for the insurance industry. New Appleman on Insurance, Current Critical Issues in Insurance Law, Spring, pp 85–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Deepwater Horizon Unified Command, U.S. scientific team draws on new data, multiple scientific methodologies to reach updated estimate of oil flows from BP’s well, June 15, 2010. http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/661583

  • Department of Energy and Climate Change, ‘Offshore oil and gas in the UK: an independent review of the regulatory regime’ (December 2011, U.K.). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/offshore-oil-and-gas-in-the-uk-independent-review-of-the-regulatory-regime

  • Dynes S, Goetz E, Freeman M (2008) Cyber-security: are economic incentives adequate? In: Goetz E, Shenoi S (eds) IFIP international federation for information processing, volume 253, critical infrastructure protection. Springer, Boston, pp 15–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Faure M, Wang H (2016) The use of financial market instruments to cover liability following a major offshore accident. In: Faure M (ed) Civil liability and financial security for offshore oil and gas activities. CUP, pp 236–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Focus Magazine (2010) Macondo: assessing the implications, oil and energy trends. Focus Magazine 35:3–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauci GM (1999) Protection of the marine environment through the international ship-source oil pollution compensation regimes. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 8(1):29–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Maritime Organisation (1996) Civil liability for oil pollution damage: texts of conventions on liability and compensation for oil pollution damage. IMO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsson M (2007) The international oil pollution compensation funds and the international regime of compensation for oil pollution damage. In: Basedow J, Magnus U, Wolfrum R (eds) Pollution of the sea – prevention and compensation, Hamburg studies on maritime affairs, vol 10. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 138–150. https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/282224.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellner LB et al (2010) Insurance coverage issues for third-party businesses and municipalities with losses due to the oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, Insurance Coverage Alert, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, May 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • King RO (2010) Deepwater horizon oil spill disaster: risk, recovery, and insurance implications, Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, www.crs.gov, R41320, July 12, 2010, p 3

  • Kotula M, Insurance, pollution exclusions, and the DWH Gulf of Mexico oil spill. http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/emergingissues/blogs/gulf_oil_spill.aspx

  • Little (1998) The hazardous and noxious substances convention: a new horizon in the regulation of marine pollution. LMCLQ 4:554–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Little G, Hamilton J (1997) Compensation for catastrophic oil spills: a trans-Atlantic comparison. LMCLQ 4:554–557

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason M (2002) Transnational compensation for oil pollution damage: examining changing spatialities of environmental liability, LSE Research Papers in Environmental and Spatial Analysis (RPESA), no. 69. Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordquist M, Fausser A (2014) Offshore drilling in the outer continental shelf: international best practices and safety standards in the wake of the DWH explosion and oil spill. In: Lodge M, Nordquist M (eds) Peaceful order in the world’s oceans. Brill

    Google Scholar 

  • Noussia K (2011) The BP oil spill – environmental pollution liability and other legal ramifications. Eur Energy Environ Law Rev 20(3):98–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, Recommendations to the President on Protecting American Cyber Interests through International Engagement, 31/5/2018. https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/282224.pdf

  • Pagliery J (2015) The inside story of the biggest hack in history, CNN Business, 8/5/2015. https://money.cnn.com/2015/08/05/technology/aramco-hack/index.html

  • Sandvik B, Suikkari S (1997) Harm and reparation in international treaty regimes: an overview. In: Wetterstein P (ed) Harm to the environment: the right to compensation and the assessment of damages. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 57–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Staff Reporter, ‘Lloyd’s: offshore energy underwriting ‘out of step”. http://www.cirmagazine.com/cir/lloyds-offshore-energy-underwriting-out-of-step.php

  • Sutherland S (2015) Paying for pollution? AIG - Insider Quarterly’s Winter 2015 Issue. https://www.pwc.com.au/publications/cyber-savvy-securing-operational-technology-assets.html

  • Wetterstein (1994) Trends in maritime environmental impairment liability. LMCLQ 2:230–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter A (2010) USGS director quietly wages fearless war on oil spill. The New York Times, June 16, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06/16/16greenwire-usgs-director-quietly-wages-fearless-war-on-oi-83792.html

  • World Energy Council (2016) World energy perspectives, the road to resilience: managing cyber risk (Used by permission of the World Energy Council. www.worldenergy.org)

  • Wren (1999) The hazardous and noxious substances convention. In: Nordquist MH, Moore JN (eds) Current maritime issues and the international maritime organisation. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 335–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu (2001) Liability and compensation for bunker pollution. Thomas Miller P&I Ltd., New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

    Kyriaki Noussia

Authors
  1. Kyriaki Noussia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyriaki Noussia .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Studies, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milano, Italy

    Pierpaolo Marano

  2. Law School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

    Kyriaki Noussia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Noussia, K. (2020). Cybersecurity and Environmental Impact: Insurance as a Better Protection Mechanism for Liability from Incidents in Oil and Gas Operations. In: Marano, P., Noussia, K. (eds) InsurTech: A Legal and Regulatory View. AIDA Europe Research Series on Insurance Law and Regulation, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27386-6_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27386-6_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27385-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27386-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation