Offshore installation security is the protection of maritime installations from intentional harm. As part of general maritime security, offshore installation security is defined as the installation's ability to combat unauthorized acts designed to cause intentional harm to the installation.ISO (September 2007), ISO 28000:2007, pg. 2, Retrieved May 25, 2019Cordner, L. (2018). Maritime Security Risks, Vulnerabilities and Cooperation: Uncertainty in the Indian Ocean. New South Wales, AUS: palgrave macmillan The security of offshore installations is vital as not only may a threat result in personal, economic, and financial losses, but it also concerns the strategic aspects of the petroleum market and geopolitics.BP (June 2018). BP Statistical Review of World Energy. 67th Edition. Retrieved 24 May 2019

Offshore installations refer to offshore platforms, oil platforms, and various types of offshore drilling rigs. It also is a general term for mobile and fixed maritime structures which includes facilities that are intended for exploration; drilling; the production, processing, or storage of hydrocarbons, and other related activities regarding the processing of fluids lying beneath the seabed.Det Norske Veritas (2011). Offshore Standard DNV-OS-C101 - Design of Offshore Steel Structures, General (LRFD Method) (DNV-OS-C101). Høvik, Norway: Author. Retrieved 22 April Offshore installations are most commonly engaged in drilling actions located in the continental shelf of a country and form a major part of the petroleum industry's upstream sector.IEA (May 2018). Offshore Energy Outlook. Retrieved 23 May 2019

Whilst records of security incidents date to the 1960s, the matter did not appear in academic writings until the early 1980s .Jenkins, B.M. (1988). Potential threats to offshore platforms (P-7406). Santa Monica, CA: The RAND CorporationJenkins, B.M & Cordes, B. & Gardela, K., & Petty, G. (September 1983). A Chronology of Attacks and other Criminal Actions Against Maritime Targets (P-6906). Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation. Retrieved 24 May 2019 A milestone is the 1988 SUA Act & Protocol which criminalized crime or violence against ships or fixed platforms.United Nations, (March 1988). Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation. After the September 11 attacks in 2001, there was increased awareness of possible threats in the offshore energy sector.Kashubsky, M. (2013). Protecting offshore oil and gas installations: Security threats and countervailing measures. Journal of Energy Security, 11. Retrieved 18 April 2019Sebastian, M.A. (2015). Critical Infrastructures – Offshore Installation Protection. Malaysia: Centre for Maritime Security & Diplomacy. Retrieved 17 April 2019 Threats ITOPF (2018). Environmental Effects of Oil Spills. Retrieved 22 May 2019IOGP (2018). Security. Retrieved 22 May 2019Herbert-Burns, R. (2009). Tankers, Specialized Production Vessels, and Offshore Terminals: Vulnerability and Security in the International Maritime Oil Sector. In R. Herbert-Burns, S. Bateman, & P. Lehr (Eds.). Lloyd's MIU Handbook of Maritime Security (pp. 133-159). Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications stem from sources such as pirates, environmental extremists, and other criminals, and they may vary in gravity and frequency. There are a variety of protective mechanisms in place, and these range from international legal frameworks to specific industry planning and responses.Kashubsky, M. & Morrison, A. (2013). Security Of Offshore Oil And Gas Facilities: Exclusion Zones And Ships' Routeing. Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs. Vol. 5(1). Retrieved 17 April 2019

History

1960s - 2000s Record keeping of security incidents of offshore installations dates back to the 1960s, but it was not until the early 1980s that possible threats were first addressed within academic literature. This lack of protection left the assets vulnerable to attacks; however, with the Achille Lauro attack in 1985, the awareness for the protection of maritime targets, including offshore installations, increased. The attack is seen as a major driver for the 1988 adoption of the Convention For The Suppression Of Unlawful Acts Against The Safety Of Maritime Navigation (SUA Act) criminalizes behavior of crime or violence against ships including attacks of terrorism and piracy.IMO. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. Retrieved 22 May 2019. The signing of the accompanying SUA Protocol, the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, which prohibits and punishes behavior that may threaten the security of offshore fixed platforms is seen to present a milestone in offshore installation security. In the same year Brian Michael Jenkins published a paper under the RAND Corporation and was the first to comprehensively list a record of historical attacks on offshore installations and identify the main methods of attack. By the late 1980s the awareness of installation security had increased, and the first international legal regulation was in place. Nevertheless, industry standards with regards to the protection of offshore installations were still low.

September 11 attacks as turning point The 9/11 attacks marked a turning point in the international awareness and policy towards the comprehensive protection of offshore energy sector as political engagement with the topic increased. Moreover, since 2004, the international community experienced an increase in the attacks on offshore installation due to reasons such as the increased capabilities of adversaries, political instability within certain nations, and armed conflicts in oil producing countries. For example, since 2006 the conflict in the Niger Delta has resulted in increased attacks in the Gulf of Guinea and raised security level.

According to the International Energy Agency, the security of offshore oil and gas industry is currently of economic and strategic importance as about one quarter of the global energy supply stems from offshore sources.Batemans, S. & Bergin, A. (March 2009). Sea Change: Advancing Australia's Ocean Interests. Barton, AUS: Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Retrieved 23 May 2019. The resulting overall development towards heightened awareness and recognition of the issue has affected the organization of the offshore oil and gas sector within their installations. For example, some companies include a security division within their Health, Safety & Environment departments.Mærsk Drilling. Health, Safety, Security & Environment. Retrieved 12 April 2019. This overall development has brought changes to the international regulatory framework; namely, the passing of the ISPS Codes and the 2005 amendments to the 1988 SUA Convention and Protocol. Additionally, national laws have been enacted to include critical infrastructure protection policies (for further information see below 'Protection Mechanisms').

Security threats

While a security threat is seen as "any unlawful interference with offshore oil and gas operations or an act of violence directed towards offshore installations",Kashubsky, M. (2013). Protecting offshore oil and gas installations: Security threats and countervailing measures. Journal of Energy Security, 11. page 2. Retrieved 11 April 2019 there are several ways of how to classify the various threats facing offshore installations. The most comprehensive and encyclopedic compilation is Dr. Mikhail Kashubsky in his 2016 book. Offshore Oil and Gas Installations Security: An International Perspective. The book includes a comprehensive dataset of past attacks and security incidents involving offshore oil and gas installations entitled the Offshore Installations Attack Dataset (OIAD).CCES (July 2016). Oil and Gas Installation Security . Barton, AUS: Centre for Customs and Excise Studies. Retrieved 22 May 2019 In his writing, Kashubsky established an offshore security threat nexus in which he classifies the different threats. This classification identifies the people and organizations behind the threats as an analysis to learn more about their motivation, intent and tactics, to develop an effective response.Hansen, T.H. (2009). Distinctions in the Finer Shades of Grey: The "Four Circles Model" for Maritime Security Threat Assessment. In R. Herbert-Burns, S. Bateman, & P. Lehr (Eds.). Lloyd's MIU Handbook of Maritime Security (pp. 73-87). Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications

Specifically, there are three factors taken into account by Kashubsky when assessing the offshore security threats: geography and other enabling factors, motivations and objectives, and capabilities and tactics. With regards to geography, the location of the offshore installation is identified for possible vulnerability. Other enabling factors refer to how events such as civil wars or political unrest in the region might effect offshore security. Motivations and objectives highlight the difference in intentions by the respective threats and how this relates to a differing methods in which they might deploy threats methods. Capabilities and tactics, address how to adapt defensive operations depending on the type of type and aim of a threat. These can range from piratical kidnapping tactics to external sabotage. Since threats are seen as being motivated by a range of objectives, the threats are also seen as being interlinked and overlapping. Lastly, Kashubsky ranks the different threats according to the API Security Risk Assessment methodology.API & NPRA (May 2003). Security Vulnerability Assessment Methodology for the Petroleum and Petrochemical Industries. Retrieved 12 April 2019. This consists of a 5-level threat ranking system that define threat rankings for the petroleum and petrochemical industry, where 1 is very low, 2 is low, 3 is medium, 4 is high, and 5 is very high. This ranking is based on these three factors as well as the frequency of past incidents.

The offshore security threat nexus identifies and ranks the following threats:

Civil protest: These are interferences caused by non-violent environmental activists, indigenous activists, labour activists, striking workers, anti-government protesters or the like, usually employing non-violent and non-destructive measures. API-SRA Ranking: High Cyber threats: These present a broad spectrum of motivations and capabilities; however, there is a trend of cyber-attacks to target critical infrastructure targets, attacks that can be executed from any location worldwide. API-SRA Ranking: High Inter-state hostilities: These are certain actions of nation-states that take the form of interstate armed conflict and wars, maritime boundary disputes, or state terrorism. API-SRA Ranking: High Piracy: Piracy activities are those acts that seek financial gain and it describes the act of piracy. API-SRA Ranking: Medium Insurgency: These include regular or guerrilla combat against the armed forces of an established authority and the government or administration which act in opposition to civil authority. These may also relate to piracy as a financial tactic. API-SRA Ranking: Medium Organised crime: This addresses criminal activities with illegal ventures for financial purpose, specifically those which are non-ideological. API-SRA Ranking: Medium Internal sabotage: This addresses the deliberate destruction, disruption, or damage of equipment by dissatisfied employees, current or former. It also includes the intentional disclosure of sensitive and confidential information to third parties. API-SRA Ranking: Medium Terrorism: This concerns activities organised for terrorist purposes with a political aim or a tactic to realise certain sub-goals. In this classification, violence is deliberately used. API-SRA Ranking: Low