Did you read ISGOTT or SIGTTO? A risk analysis for Storage Terminals by VanCampen's Law

Using *VanCampen’s general law of functionality, we can analyze whether marine oil, gas, and chemical storage terminals can operate optimally if critical guidelines like **ISGOTT 6* (International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals) or *SIGTTO* (Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators) are not followed. Here’s the breakdown:

### *Variable Definitions in Context*  

- *Mass (m):* The physical infrastructure (storage tanks, pipelines, valves) and volume of hazardous materials (oil, gas, chemicals).  

- *Information (i):* The knowledge and application of safety protocols, operational guidelines (ISGOTT/SIGTTO), maintenance procedures, and risk assessments.  

- *Reality (r):* The actual operational environment, including risks (leaks, explosions, corrosion), regulatory requirements, and environmental/economic consequences of failure.  

### *Analysis Using the Law*  

#### *1. Probability Dysfunctional (ΔS > 0):*  

*Condition:* \((m - i) > r\)  

*Scenario:*  

- If *guidelines are ignored* (↓\(i\)), terminals rely on physical infrastructure (\(m\)) alone, without proper safety practices or procedural knowledge.  

- The *gap* between the volume of hazardous materials (\(m\)) and lack of safety information (\(i\)) exceeds the system’s ability to manage reality (\(r\)), leading to *entropy* (disorder).  

*Consequences:*  

- *Operational failures:* Leaks, explosions, or corrosion due to improper handling (e.g., incompatible chemical storage, poor maintenance).  

- *Collateral damage:* Energy (resources, safety margins) is dissipated into chaos (environmental disasters, financial losses, human casualties).  

- *Regulatory breaches:* Non-compliance with safety standards exposes terminals to legal penalties and reputational harm.  

*Example:*  

A terminal ignores ISGOTT guidelines for inert gas systems (\(i\)), leading to a buildup of flammable vapors (\(m\)) that exceeds safe thresholds (\(r\)). This imbalance \((m - i) > r\) results in an explosion (ΔS > 0).  

#### *2. Probability Functional (J > 0):*  

*Condition:* \((m + i) \leq r\)  

*Scenario:*  

- When *guidelines are followed* (↑\(i\)), terminals combine robust infrastructure (\(m\)) with procedural knowledge (\(i\)) to align with operational reality (\(r\)).  

- *Negentropy* (order) emerges as risks are minimized through systematic compliance.  

*Consequences:*  

- *Optimal performance:* Safe storage, efficient maintenance, and compliance with regulations.  

- *Energy conservation:* Resources (time, money, safety) are preserved through preventive measures.  

- *Resilience:* Systems adapt to stressors (e.g., temperature fluctuations, pressure changes) using guideline-based protocols.  

*Example:*  

A terminal adheres to SIGTTO’s recommendations for LNG storage (\(i\)), ensuring pressure relief systems (\(m\)) are calibrated to handle real-world operational limits (\(r\)). This equilibrium \((m + i) \leq r\) prevents accidents and maintains efficiency (J > 0).  

### *Key Implications for Terminal Operations*  

1. *Ignoring Guidelines = Reduced \(i\):*  

   - Without ISGOTT/SIGTTO, terminals lack critical \(i\) (e.g., gas detection protocols, emergency shutdown procedures). This forces reliance on \(m\) (physical systems) alone, which cannot dynamically respond to risks (\(r\)), accelerating entropy (ΔS > 0).  

2. *Reality (\(r\)) as a Hard Constraint:*  

   - Operational reality (\(r\)) includes physical laws (e.g., flammability limits) and regulatory demands. If \(m + i\) exceeds \(r\) (e.g., overfilling tanks without safety checks), failures are inevitable.  

3. *Collateral Damage from Entropy:*  

   - Energy dissipation (ΔS > 0) manifests as cleanup costs, litigation, or environmental harm (e.g., oil spills damaging ecosystems).  

### *Conclusion*  

Under *VanCampen’s law, marine storage terminals **cannot perform optimally* if ISGOTT/SIGTTO guidelines are disregarded. Ignoring \(i\) (safety knowledge) creates a dysfunctional system where mass (\(m\)) dominates reality (\(r\)), leading to disorder (ΔS > 0). Conversely, integrating guidelines (\(i\)) with infrastructure (\(m\)) ensures alignment with operational reality (\(r\)), fostering negentropy (J > 0) and minimizing risks.  

*Policy Takeaway:*  

- *Mandate adherence to ISGOTT/SIGTTO* (↑\(i\)) through training and audits.  

- *Regularly update infrastructure* (\(m\)) to reflect evolving guidelines and risks (\(r\)).  

- *Simulate reality* (e.g., drills, risk assessments) to test the equilibrium \((m + i) \leq r\).  

Failure to read and apply these guidelines is equivalent to removing the "brain" (\(i\)) from the system, leaving only its "body" (\(m\)) to collide catastrophically with reality (\(r\)). 

End of an Era - Dangote Refinery

 

Let’s face it earlier rather than too late. After more than 50 years of supplying petroleum products such as diesel, gasoline or jet fuel, a colonial, profitable business model will come to an end. In 2009 I wrote the thriller Probo Koala –

published in English under the title Toxic Tanker. I wrote this story because I was working as a loss control marine superintendent in West Africa responsible for the supervision of the delivery and discharge of these products, which I knew to be of a disputable quality.
In the book the protagonist was asked to hide or replace the original loading port documents, such as the measurement and quality testing report, which were manipulated. The only reason this business model, on which an entire logistics chain – supply, storage, and shipping – depended, could last this long, was because of intertwined interests between local buyers and international trading firms.
Low grade quality petroleum products were imported in to African countries because there was money to be made. A total disregard of the societal consequences could be observed.
Aliko Dangote, a Nigerian businessman, understood the petroleum trade model very well. He invested billions of dollars to build a local refinery in Nigeria. He wanted to supply Africa with on-spec, high quality fuels to boost their economies while halting the dependence on foreign, mediocre petroleum products.
But when one ruffles one’s feathers, opposition stands up. Vested interests in African politics interfered by limiting the local Nigerian crude supply, so the refinery had to purchase more expensive crude oil from overseas. NNPC, the National Nigerian Petroleum Corporation, run by politicians with vested interests, understood that business as usual was becoming impossible and together with their international trading partners attempted to slow down Dangote’s production capacity. No one likes to lose money.
But let’s look at this situation from a different perspective: sustainability. We should ask these questions: was the old way of doing business sustainable or harmful? Is the Dangote’s alternative sustainable and non-harmful? This is not about money alone, but about doing the right thing for a change. Investing and dealing with Africa is not about colonialism anymore. Africa woke up and, because of enormous investments from China and Russia, they realise that their vast resources should first serve Africans and not just line the pockets of Modernity (‘neo colonialism’).
I believe a different, mutually beneficial business model is possible. Negative interdependent business models mean gains for a few but at the cost of others. There needs to be a sustainable way out. Unethical trading is obsolete, because it can’t function forever. A new, exciting opportunity arises. Traders can still compete with this refinery if they can supply high quality products for a lower price, but that will be very difficult as freight needs to added to ship the fuels. Let’s support Africa, cooperate with them as true traders, storage and shipping companies who don’t take any longer what they don’t deserve.