Archives of

1. Introduction
Major accidents in the oil industry cause the release of environmental pollutants and greenhouse gases [1,2]. Controlling and reducing the effects of pollution caused by oil industries to protect the environment are the most important issues and concerns of countries, especially oil-rich countries [3]. Environmental pr oblems such as the emission of greenhouse gases, which mainly originate from these industries, have dangerous consequences and disrupt the biological nature of human societies as well as wildlife [4]. Given the nature of the activities and processes carried out, oil industries can exert adverse effects on the environment due to the production of effluents, emissions of pollutants, greenhouse gases, and hazardous wastes [5,6]. In general, oil and gas stations need a large number of tanks to store crude oil, gas, and various petroleum products. The number of these tanks depends on the distance and proximity of the unit to crude oil supply sources, the number and capacity of refining units, the variety of manufactured products, and finally how to transfer and distribute the products [7].
Fuel tank fires are always considered one of the threatening factors for working people and the surrounding residents [8]. On the other hand, fire caused by oil derivatives is one of the key parameters in determining factors affecting biological resources [9]. The environmental, economic, and social effects caused by fire and explosion of oil and chemical tanks are extremely noticeable. One of the most important effects of these events is global warming and climate change [10]. The consequences of climate change can be classified into direct and indirect (economic) damages. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has declared that the phenomenon of global warming and climate change is attributed to human activities, and most importantly, industrial activities [11].
The American National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
also identifies human activity and the production of
greenhouse gases as the main causes of this phenomenon.
Major accidents in industries can release a huge amount
of greenhouse gases into the environment at once [12],
including Deep-water Horizon in 2010 and Piper Alpha
in 1988. Risk and consequence analysis is one of the
measures that play a role in identifying the causes and
preventing their occurrence [13,14]. Risk analysis is a
common method for investigating different types of risks
related to activities, facilities, methods, and processes
[15]. A robust body of research has been conducted on
the environmental consequences of fire and explosion of
chemical tanks in Iran and worldwide. James and Renjith
[16] assessed the safety risk and environmental effects
of the explosion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanks in
eastern India. They reported their damage potential as
high and the level of environmental risk as controllable.
Khorram [17] assessed the environmental consequences
of cyanogen release in the Bushehr nuclear power plant
using ALOHA and PHAST software and reported the
environmental effects caused by the release of this toxic
substance on aquatic animals and citizens as extremely
significant. Yang et al [18] also evaluated the potential
of propylene release and explosion from pressure vessels
in Shanghai. Studies on the potential of explosion and
fire accidents in petroleum derivatives and chemical
tanks are of particular importance because these events
have safety, health, environmental, economic, and credit
consequences.
In general, there are about 11 000 types of ground
tanks all over Iran containing all kinds of chemicals and
petroleum derivatives such as gasoline and crude oil.
Shahid Almasi fuel supply center in the Ahvaz oil field
is located in Koreyt Camp to support oil production
operations in oil-bearing areas and provide services such
as receiving, storing, and sending annually more than
200 million liters of oil and gas needed by drilling rigs
to perform in-well operations, coiled tubing, oil-based
mud plant, well-processing plan, and the like. It should
be noted that the Ahvaz oil field is the largest in Iran and
the third largest oil field in the world. In this research, in
addition to the risk assessment of strategic diesel tanks
and determining the global warming potential (GWP)
caused by the fire of strategic diesel tanks, the model for
developing an environmental management plan for fuel
tanks is presented based on the McKinsey gap analysis
method.
2. Materials and Methods
The current descriptive-analytical study evaluated
greenhouse gas emissions caused by the fire of strategic
diesel tanks in the Shahid Almasi fuel supply center and
provided an environmental management plan based
on the McKinsey method in 2022 in a refueling station
within the oil field.
The information related to the technical specifications
of the fuel tanks, capacity, and geographical location
was collected through the National Iranian South Oil
Company (NISOC). Possible scenarios included fire or
explosion of two diesel tanks (a 650 000-L tank and a
2.3-million-liter tank) at the Shahid Almasi fuel center.
The height of the oil tanks above sea level is 22 m and the
area of the station is 77 568 m2. The geographical location
of the 650 000-L tank is 31°13’35.44”N and 48°57’51.27”E,
and the 2.3 million-liter tank is 31°13’34.42”N and
48°57’48.30”E. Figure 1 presents the geographic location
of the reservoir.
In the first step, possible risks that lead to the
occurrence of fire and explosion of tanks were identified
and evaluated using the hazard analysis and operation
management (HAZOP) method. In the risk analysis
using the HAZOP method, the possible scenarios of the
accident were evaluated. The risk priority number in this
method is the multiplication of three indicators: incident
severity, probability of occurrence, and risk detection
capability. Risk priority criteria in the HAZOP method
include:
2.1. Severity of risk
The severity of risks indicates the extent and range of
damages and losses that will be caused if the risk occurs
(Table 1).
2.2. Hazard risk
The risk probability factor indicates the possibility of a
risk occurring in a certain period (Table 2).
2.3. Detectability
This criterion assesses the potential to detect the risk
(Table 3).
The hazard risk matrix integrates the elements of
hazard severity and probability tables to provide an
effective tool for estimating the acceptable level of risk
degree (Table 4). The keywords used in the evaluation
process are also presented in Table 5.
Scoring of risk indicators in the HAZOP method, based
on Fuentes and collegues’ [20] suggestion, was done by
ten health and safety experts with relevant education
(occupational health, environment, and industrial
safety) and at least five years of work experience. After
determining the priorities of the risk of fire and explosion
in the diesel tanks of Shahid Almasi fuel station using the
HAZOP method, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions,
including carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4), was estimated
from possible incidents. To estimate the emission factor
of pollutants and greenhouse gases, the EPA method
(EPA, 2002) was used [21].
Boveirehi et al
200 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 4, 2023
2.4. Calculation of the emission of air pollutants and
greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
nitrous oxide, and methane) due to the explosion or fire
of fuel tanks
CO2 as a greenhouse gas is produced and emitted as a result
of fuel combustion. Assuming complete fuel combustion,
Equation 1 determines the combustion and CO2 emission
[22]. The emission equations of CO (equation 2), CO2
(equation 3), CH4 (equation 4), and N2O (equation 5)
from diesel burning are also presented [23].
Cx Hy + (x + y/4-z/2) O2→(x)CO2 + (y/2) H2O (Eq. 1)
C8H18 + 12.5O2 = 8CO + 9H2O (Eq. 2)
2C8H18 + 25O2 = 16CO2 + 18H2O + C (Eq. 3)
2C8H18 + 35O2 = 16CO2 + 18H2O + CH4 (Eq. 4)
2NO = N2O + 1/2 O2 (Eq. 5)
The emission of CO2 is caused by the oxidation of
hydrocarbons during the combustion process. Due to the
defects of diesel combustion systems, they do not always
get enough oxygen from the fuel carbons; thus, CO gas
is produced. CH4 emission may also occur as a result of
incomplete combustion of fuel in the form of unburned
CH4. Furthermore, N2O is produced and released during
a series of complex reactions during the combustion
Figure 1. Geographical location of the investigated reservoirs on the Google Image
Table 1. Classification of accident severity
Criterion Evaluation Degree
Mass death/damage over one million dollars Disaster 10
Death of one person/damage over five hundred thousand dollars Disaster 9
Loss of a body part or disability/working in an environment with a harmful factor higher than
limit/damage over one hundred thousand dollars
Very dangerous 8
The third-degree burns/permanent partial disability/damage over 50 thousand dollars/lost days more than 30 days Very dangerous 7
Injuries and severe fractures/second-degree burns/lost days more than 23 days and less than
31 days/damage between 10 and 50 thousand dollars
Dangerous 6
Moderate injuries and fractures/lost days more than 17 days and less than 24 days/damage
between 5 and 10 thousand dollars
Dangerous 5
Injuries and minor fractures/lost days more than 11 and less than 18 days/damage over
one thousand and under five thousand dollars/first-degree burn
Dangerous 4
Injuries and partial fractures/degree burns/1 days lost more than 5 days and less than 11 days/damages over $500 and under
$1000
Dangerous 3
Minor injury/lost days more than 1 day and less than 6 days/damage between 100 and 500 dollars Dangerous 2
Outpatient treatment/days lost one day/damage less than one hundred dollars Dangerous 1
Note. Source [19].
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 4, 2023 201
Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions by the fire of strategic diesel tanks
process. Unlike CO2, the emission of CH4 and N2O
depends on the type of fuel and the form of combustion.
In general, the emission of CH4 and N2O (based on CO2
equivalent) in combustion sources is significantly lower
than the emission of CO2 [24].
The emission coefficients of greenhouse gases under
the condition of complete combustion follow a certain
pattern based on the hydrocarbon structure of the
combustible material. The emission coefficients of
air pollutants and greenhouse gases from petroleum
compounds are provided in the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) of the United States.
The coefficients related to diesel are described in its
AP-2 standard [25]. Therefore, it is possible to determine
the emission coefficients of greenhouse gases and air
pollutants using an online calculator, based on the volume
of combustible material. The chemical characteristics
and criteria of emergency response planning guidelines
(ERPG) and immediately dangerous to life and health
(IDLH) for diesel are presented in Table 6.
2.5. Calculating the greenhouse effect
After determining the emission coefficient of
greenhouse gases caused by the fire of diesel tanks, the
possible greenhouse effect was calculated for the burning
of all the fuel content of diesel tanks. Table 7 presents the
greenhouse effect of each of the greenhouse gases based
on the CO2 equivalent provided by Flessa et al [27].
2.6 Gap analysis by McKinsey 7S model
To evaluate the environmental management priorities of
oil reservoirs, it is necessary to determine the current state
of environmental management and the gap between the
current situation and the optimal conditions. Therefore,
after identifying and prioritizing the risks, pollution
potential, and the effect of global warming caused by the
fire or explosion of diesel tanks in the Shahid Almasi fuel
station, we evaluated the environmental management
situation related to emergencies using the McKinsey
7S Model. It is a framework and management model
that expresses seven factors to organize a company in a
general and effective way [28]. In a study conducted by
Carrier, the change and movement of the organization are
affected by the interaction between the seven dimensions
of structure, strategy, systems, style, employees, skills,
and common values (superior goals) and called it the 7S
framework. Since their research was done at McKinsey
Consulting Company, their framework is also known
as McKinsey 7S. The main elements of this system are
strategy, common values, staff (manpower), management
style, skills, system, and structure [29].
A questionnaire was used in the process of gap analysis
in the McKinsey method. The subscales of each of the
dimensions were collected from different sources, and
Table 2. Classification of risk probability in the HAZOP method
Criterion Evaluation Degree
Danger occurs less than once
a year
Unlikely probability (unlikely
risks)
2
Danger occurs 1 to 11 times
a year
Very low probability (rare risks) 4
Danger occurs 1 to 2 times a
month
Low probability (casual risks) 6
Danger occurs 1 to 6 times
a week
Medium probability (repetitive
risks)
8
Danger occurs one or more
times a day
High probability (unavoidable
risks)
10
Note. HAZOP: Hazard analysis and operation management; Source [19].
Table 3. Risk classification based on detectability in the HAZOP method
Criterion Evaluation Degree
Risk is definitely tracked and detected with
existing controls.
Detectable risk 1
In less than 24 hours, the risk is tracked and
detected.
Detectable risk 3
In less than a month, the risk is tracked and
detected.
Detectable risk 5
In less than six months, the risk is tracked
and detected.
Detectable risk 7
In less than a year, the risk is tracked and
detected.
Detectable risk 9
There is no control or, if there is, it is unable
to detect the hazard.
Undetectable risk 10
Note. HAZOP: Hazard analysis and operation management; Source [19].
Table 4. Risk matrix in HAZOP method
Risk classification Risk criterion
The score of severity and detectability is 9 and
above/ the probability score is 9 and above / Risk
greater than 500
Unacceptable
The effect intensity score (worsening rate) is 7 and
8/detectability is 7/probability of occurrence 6/risk
between 100 and 500
Unfavorable
Risk between 100 and 500
Acceptable but in
need of revision
Risk less than 50 Acceptable
Note. HAZOP: Hazard analysis and operation management; Source [19].
Table 5. Keywords used in the risk assessment process using the HAZOP
method
Keywords Description of deviations
None The physical process is not done.
More than The relevant physical properties are more than they should be.
Less than Physical properties are less than they should be.
As well as There are other cases than those defined.
Part of
The composition of the process is different from the
composition it should be.
Reverse The reverse process happens.
Other than Sometimes abnormal operations occur.
Note. HAZOP: Hazard analysis and operation management; Source [19].
Boveirehi et al
202 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 4, 2023
43 items related to the dimensions and criteria were
compiled. In this regard, according to Guest et al [30] who
considered ten experts as the minimum number of experts
to conduct qualitative studies using a questionnaire, 20
environmental experts were used to design and score the
items on a five-point Likert scale. The dimensions of the
questionnaire and the number of items related to each
dimension are presented in Table 8.
The validity of the questionnaire was assessed by
the content method, and its reliability was assessed
using Cronbach’s alpha method. To assess validity, the
questions were sent to 20 environmental management
experts and examined in terms of simplicity, relevance,
and clarity. The weighted average method was used to
determine the average level of scores for each item. In
this method, to interpret the subject’s scores, the score
of McKinsey dimensions on a Likert scale and the total
score of the questionnaire were compared with the mean
score of the scale. If the subject’s score was higher than
the average, the spectrum scale was positive, and if it was
lower than the average, the spectrum scale was negative.
The scale average was calculated by equation 6.
M = (NK + 1K)/2 Eq. 6
where M is the mean score of the scale, K is the
number of questions, and N is the number of answer
levels (5 levels). After calculating the average score of
the McKinsey dimensions, the results were compared
with the optimal situation in the gap chart. Finally, the
priorities of the response plan in emergencies and the gap
between the current situation and the desired situation
were determined, and solutions were provided to reduce
the gap degree.
3. Results
Table 9 presents the results of the analysis of risks leading
to the occurrence of fire and explosion accidents in diesel
tanks. Nine potential risks of fire and explosion of tanks
were identified and evaluated, and seven risks were
classified at an unacceptable level.
The results indicated that the occurrence of air attack,
decay and corrosion of tank walls, and human errors with
a risk priority factor of 200, 168, and 120, respectively,
are the most important possible causes of fire as well as
explosion of 650 000-L and 2.3 million-liter diesel tanks.
Assuming the complete burning of the content of two
diesel tanks, the emission coefficient of greenhouse gases
will be based on the OAQPS-AP-2 standard as described
in Table 9 [27].
Regarding the emission coefficient of the greenhouse
gases caused by the fire and explosion of diesel tanks,
the highest release level was related to CO2 (7 811 000
kg), as depicted in Table 10. N2O with 14850, CH4
with 897, and CO2 with 625 kg were other greenhouse
gases released from these tanks. Table 11 illustrates the
amount of greenhouse gas emissions caused by fire or
explosion of diesel tanks. The total GWP caused by the
fire of the 650 000-liter tank was estimated as 1 823 330,
the 2.3 million-liter tank was 6 446 063, and all tanks were
12 259 913 kg CO2 equivalent (Table 10). Furthermore,
Figure 2 presents a comparison of the GWP caused by
each of the greenhouse gases during fire or explosion of
diesel tanks.
3.1. The results of a gap analysis by McKinsey method
Considering the potential of major accidents in the
studied fuel station, it seems necessary to use an effective
management system and face these emergencies.
Identifying current management deficiencies through
gap analysis is an important tool to achieve this goal.
Therefore, the gap analysis method using the McKinsey
7S method was used. After compiling 43 items in seven
investigated dimensions, Cronbach’s alpha was employed
to assess the validity, and the content method was used
to assess the reliability of the questionnaire. Considering
that the minimum acceptable level of reliability is 0.7 [28],
the reliability of the dimensions of management style,
common values, skills, and staff was acceptable, structure
was at a good level, and strategy and system were at an
excellent level. The content validity ratio (CVR) was also
used to assess the validity of the questionnaire. Given that
the number of experts was 20, the minimum acceptable
CVR value is 042 [29]. The validity of the questionnaire
was confirmed according to Table 12. Moreover, to
interpret the scores of the questionnaire, the weighted
average method was used.
Table 6. Chemical specifications and ERPG and IDLH criteria for gasoline
Chemical agent Molecular weight ERPG-1 IDLH LEL UEL Degree of ignition Freezing point
Gasoline 72 g/mol 200 ppm 5 mg/m3 14000 ppm 74 000 ppm 126.7 °C -40 °C
Note. ERPG: Emergency response planning guidelines; IDLH: Immediately dangerous to life and health; LEL: Lower explosive limit; UEL: Upper explosive limit;
Source [26].
Table 7. The greenhouse effect of each greenhouse gas based on CO2
equivalent
Parameter
classification
of the effect
Unit Compounds
Characterization
Factor
Reference
Global
warming
Climate
change
Co2 (kg) – Eq.
N2O 296
Flessa et
al [27]
Co2 1
CH4 23
CO 1.57
Note. CO2: Carbon dioxide; N2O: Nitrous oxide; CH4: Methane; CO:
Carbon monoxide.
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 4, 2023 203
Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions by the fire of strategic diesel tanks
The results of a gap analysis by the McKinsey method in
Figure 3 demonstrate that the average scores of the seven
investigated dimensions were 3.18, which is a significant
distance from the optimal limit (four). These results show
the unacceptable conditions of safety and environmental
management for emergencies in the Koreyt Camp
diesel tanks. The lowest average score was related to the
strategy dimension (2.67). Likewise, the shared values
dimension was at a low level of efficiency with an average
score of 2.69. The highest efficiency was obtained in the
system dimension (3.92). These results suggest that the
dimensions of strategy, organizational culture, and staff
skills were at a relatively unfavorable level and required
the implementation of environmental management
programs to reduce the potential of emergencies in
the area. The results of a gap analysis by the McKinsey
Table 8. The Criteria of Each Dimension of the McKinsey Method and the Number of Items in Each Dimension
McKinsey Dimensions Criteria Number of Items
Strategy Vision, mission, goals, and strategies 4
Structure Centralization of decision-making, specialization, formalization, and geographical dispersion 6
Systems Data and information management, the temporal and spatial domain of the system, and technologies 19
Skills Skills required at all levels 2
Management style
Steering committee, senior management support, project management, resource allocation, incentive and
punishment policies, and communication
5
Staff Training, project team, participation, and experience 4
Shared values General culture 3
Table 9. Results of risk assessment of accidents leading to fire and explosion in diesel tanks by HAZOP method
Row
Operation parameter
keywords
Risk Risk consequence
Probability of
Occurrence
Severity
of Event
Probability of
Detection
RPN Acceptance Criteria
1
Construction of
foundation (Less Than)
Unfavorable quality of
foundation concrete
Land subsidence (under
the tanks)
2 6 1 12 Needs to be checked
2
Diesel storage (Less
than)
Rotting and corrosion of
tank walls
Leakage from diesel
tanks
8 7 3 168 Unacceptable
3
exploitation operation
(other than)
Collision of objects and
machines with tanks
Leakage from oil and
diesel transmission lines
2 10 1 10 Unacceptable
4
Diesel storage (Less
than)
Weakness in insulation
Evaporation from diesel
tanks, fire
4 2 3 24 Needs to be checked
5
exploitation operation
(other than)
Sabotage or air raid
Explosion, fire of diesel
tanks
2 10 10 200 Unacceptable
6
exploitation operation
(other than)
Occurrence of lightning
Explosion, fire of diesel
tanks
2 10 4 80 Unacceptable
7
Facility repairs (As
well as)
Welding in the tank area
Explosion, fire of diesel
tanks
2 10 1 20 Unacceptable
8 Diesel storage (Reverse)
Clogged pipelines,
failure of pumps
Overflowing of diesel
tanks, fire
2 10 3 60 Unacceptable
9
exploitation operation
(as well as)
Human errors
(Complete closing of the
tank drain valve)
Gasoline emission in the
environment and fire
4 10 3 120 Unacceptable
Note. HAZOP: Hazard analysis and operation management; RPN: Risk priority number.
Table 10. The emission factor of greenhouse gases caused by the fire of
diesel tanks based on the OAQPS-AP-2 standard
N2O (kg) CO2 (kg) CO (kg) CH4 (kg)
650 000-L diesel tank 335 1 721 000 105 92
2.3 million-liter diesel tank 1150 6 090 000 520 495
Total 1485 7 811 000 625 897
Note. OAQPS: Office of air quality planning and standards; N2O: Nitrous
oxide; CO2: Carbon dioxide; CO: Carbon monoxide; CH4: Methane.
Table 11. Calculation of GWP caused by fire or explosion of diesel tanks
Greenhouse
gas
Greenhouse
gas emissions
Equivalent
kg Co2/kg
**
Weighting
Indices
Ultimate
capacity of
GWP
650 000-
L diesel
tank
Co2 1 721 000 1 0.2 1 721 000
N2O 335 298 59.6 99830
CO 105 1.9 0.38 199.5
CH4 92 25 5 2300
2.3
millionliter
diesel
tank
Co2 6 090 000 1 0.2 6 090 000
N2O 1150 298 59.6 3 427 000
CO 520 1.9 0.38 988
CH4 495 25 5 12375
Total
Co2 7 811 000 1 0.2 7 811 000
N2O 1485 298 59.6 4 425 300
CO 625 1.9 0.38 1187.5
CH4 897 25 5 22425
Total GWP -- - 12 259 913
Note. GWP: Global warming potential; CO2: Carbon dioxide; N2O: Nitrous
oxide; CO: Carbon monoxide; CH4: Methane.
Boveirehi et al
204 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 4, 2023
method are presented in Figure 4.
4. Discussion
Controlling and reducing the effects of pollution caused
by oil industries to protect the environment are the
most important issues and concerns of all countries,
especially oil-rich countries. Between 2016 and 2021,
energy consumption has increased by 3.2% in the world,
in which the oil industry plays the main role [31]. The
major environmental problems of these industries,
especially regarding non-compliance with environmental
regulations and standards, bring dangerous consequences
and disrupt the biological nature of human societies and
wildlife. Major accidents such as explosions or fires of oil
tanks are among the events with considerable effects on
the natural and human environment. Risk assessment
studies are the basis of such studies. This research used
the HAZOP method to identify the potential for accidents
in strategic reservoirs. The effectiveness of this method
in evaluating the potential of accidents in oil tanks and
chemical industries has been confirmed in various studies
[32,33].
Our results indicated that fire and explosion in fuel
tanks, in addition to safety and health consequences, lead
to the release of air pollutants and greenhouse gases at a
relatively high level. Imamura et al stated that large-scale
events have a strong potential to cause global warming
[34]. The strategic diesel tanks investigated in this study
are among the largest storage tanks for fuel derivatives in
the country, and the fire and explosion incidents of these
tanks are classified in the large-scale group.
The total GWP for the fire of the diesel tanks in
the Koreyt Camp of Ahvaz city was estimated to be
12 259 913 kg of CO2 equivalent. Beyer et al [35] showed
that the GWP in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (Gulf
of Mexico) was more than 5 billion kilograms of CO2
equivalent, which was caused by the leakage of 4.9 million
barrels (about 775 million liters of crude oil) of oil in the
sea. Cho et al [36] estimated the GWP of a scenario for
the explosion of a nuclear power plant in eastern Japan
to be 4.5 billion kilograms of CO2 equivalent. This severe
consequence of the greenhouse effect is due to the use of
the synthetic iodine-131 isotope in these power plants,
which can cause a sustainable fire during eight days by
changing carbon absorption and surface deposition.
However, there is no reabsorption and surface diffusion
in the fire caused by fossil fuels. The research results
revealed that CO2 with a GWP equal to 7 811 000 is
responsible for 63.7% of the GWP caused by the fire
of diesel tanks. Annamalai et al [37] showed that, on
average, 70% of the GWP is induced by the burning of
fossil fuels caused by CO2. Tong et al [38] asserted that the
Figure 2. Comparison of the GWP Caused by the Greenhouse Gases during
Fire or Explosion of Diesel Tanks. Note. GWP: Global warming potential
Table 12. Cronbach’s alpha results related to the components of the
McKinsey questionnaire dimensions
Variables Number of items Cronbach’s alpha CVR
Structure 9 0.84 0.45
Common values 4 0.72 0.52
Systems 12 0.91 0.56
Skills 5 0.7 0.49
Management style 4 0.71 0.73
Staff 6 0.76 0.57
Strategy 3 0.95 0.46
Note. CVR: Content validity ratio.
Figure 3. The average scores of the items in each of the McKinsey
dimensions
Figure 4. The Results of a Gap Analysis by the McKinsey Method
(Difference between the Existing Situation and the Desired Situation)
2.67 2.87
3.92 3.86
3.16 3.15
2.69
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Strategy Structure Systems Skills Style Staff Shared
Values
Point
McKinsey dimensions
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 4, 2023 205
Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions by the fire of strategic diesel tanks
lowest GWP caused by fossil fuels is related to natural gas,
while diesel has the highest level of CO2 emissions after
crude oil. Environmental consequences caused by fire or
explosion of oil tanks suggest the necessity of developing
an environmental plan. The results of the gap analysis by
the McKinsey method in this research showed that the
weakness of environmental management in the Koreyt
Camp oil complex is related to strategies and common
values (environmental culture). Cordes et al [39] reported
the strategy factor as the most important foundation
of environmental management. Monazami [40] stated
that environmental culture plays an important role in
predicting environmental damage. Functional priorities
in the management plan are derived from the current
performance of the environmental management system
[41]. Therefore, it is necessary to continuously assess
the environmental management situation to determine
the gap between the current and the desired situations
and to prevent and deal with sudden events affecting the
environment.
5. Conclusion
The results of this research showed that an accident with
diesel storage tanks in the Koreyt Camp complex in the
Ahvaz oil field, in addition to the safety and economic
consequences, caused significant environmental effects
such as the release of air pollutants and greenhouse gases.
It should be noted that the current research is based on
the possible scenario of the accident, and although the
worst scenario (fire of the entire content of the fuel tanks)
is considered in the evaluation of the consequences of
greenhouse gas emissions, other uncontrolled factors
are possibly effective in increasing the severity of the
consequences. Moreover, considering the high number
of storage tanks in oil-rich areas, it is necessary to develop
environmental management plans to prevent these
accidents and be prepared to deal with emergencies. It
is thus suggested to conduct an environmental impact
assessment study for similar incidents in other reservoirs
of oil derivatives and chemicals in Iran.
Authors’ Contribution
Conceptualization: Mahnaz Mirza Ebrahim Tehrani.
Data curation: Nader Boveirehi.
Formal analysis: Nader Boveirehi.
Funding acquisition: Mahnaz Mirza Ebrahim Tehrani.
Investigation: Nader Boveirehi.
Methodology: Mahnaz Mirza Ebrahim Tehrani.
Project administration: Seyed Ali Jozi.
Resources: Mahsa Bakhshaei.
Software: Nader Boveirehi.
Supervision: Seyed Ali Jozi.
Validation: Seyed Ali Jozi.
Visualization: Mahnaz Mirza Ebrahim Tehrani.
Writing–original draft: Nader Boveirehi.
Writing–review & editing: Nader Boveirehi.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
Ethical Approval
There were no ethical considerations to be considered in this
research.
Funding
This research did not receive any grant from funding agencies in
the public, commercial, or non-profit sectors.
References
1. Carpenter A. Oil pollution in the North Sea: the impact of
governance measures on oil pollution over several decades.
Hydrobiologia. 2019;845(1):109-27. doi: 10.1007/s10750-
018-3559-2.
2. Fayiga AO, Ipinmoroti MO, Chirenje T. Environmental
pollution in Africa. Environ Dev Sustain. 2018;20(1):41-73.
doi: 10.1007/s10668-016-9894-4.
3. Rosell-Melé A, Moraleda-Cibrián N, Cartró-Sabaté M,
Colomer-Ventura F, Mayor P, Orta-Martínez M. Oil pollution
in soils and sediments from the Northern Peruvian Amazon.
Sci Total Environ. 2018;610-611:1010-9. doi: 10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2017.07.208.
4. Naeimi M, Haddad A, Nokandeh S, Zandifar S, Lashgari
A. Assessing the effects of Rey-Sari oil pipeline on the
environment using environmental geotechnics parameters.
Town Ctry Plann. 2020;12(2):457-78. doi: 10.22059/
jtcp.2020.302185.670114. [Persian].
5. Choobkar N. Investigating the Environmental and
Human Impacts of Air Pollutants Produced by Ahvaz
Oil and Gas Exploitation Complex No. 3. Human &
Environment. 2022. Available from: https://sanad.
iau.ir/journal/he/?_action = article&au = 161494&_
au = Nasrin + + choobkar&lang = en.
6. Guo X, Fan JC, Melby JA. Simulation and calculation of
thermal radiation of oil tank fire based on FDS. J Mech Eng
Res Dev. 2016;39(2):357-63.
7. Ghashghaei R, Sabzghabaei GR, Dashti S, Jafari Azar S,
Salehipour F. Modeling and prediction of environmental
consequences of methanol as the most dangerous goods in
ports (case study: Bandar Imam Khomeini). J Health Saf Work.
2019;9(2):157-67. [Persian].
8. Esfandian H, Goodarzian Urimi M, Shokoohi Rad A. Risk
assessment of gasoline storage unit of national Iranian oil
product distribution company using PHAST software. Int J
Eng. 2021;34(4):763-8. doi: 10.5829/ije.2021.34.04a.02.
9. Zhang Z, Zong R, Tao C, Ren J, Lu S. Experimental study on
flame height of two oil tank fires under different lip heights
and distances. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2020;139:182-90.
doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2020.04.019.
10. Little DI, Sheppard SRJ, Hulme D. A perspective on oil
spills: what we should have learned about global warming.
Ocean Coast Manag. 2021;202:105509. doi: 10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2020.105509.
11. O’Neill BC, Oppenheimer M, Warren R, Hallegatte S, Kopp
RE, Pörtner HO, et al. IPCC reasons for concern regarding
climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang. 2017;7(1):28-37. doi:
10.1038/nclimate3179.
12. Boicourt WC, Ličer M, Li M, Vodopivec M, & Malačič V. Sea
state: recent progress in the context of climate change. In:
Coastal Ecosystems in Transition: A Comparative Analysis of
the Northern Adriatic and Chesapeake Bay. Wiley; 2020. p.
21-48. doi: 10.1002/9781119543626.ch3.
13. Abbassi R, Khan F, Khakzad N, Veitch B, Ehlers S. Risk analysis
Boveirehi et al
206 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 4, 2023
of offshore transportation accident in arctic waters. Int J Marit
Eng. 2017;159(A3). doi: 10.5750/ijme.v159iA3.1025.
14. Khakzad N, Khan F, Paltrinieri N. On the application of near
accident data to risk analysis of major accidents. Reliab Eng
Syst Saf. 2014;126:116-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2014.01.015.
15. Harms-Ringdahl L. Relationships between accident
investigations, risk analysis, and safety management.
J Hazard Mater. 2004;111(1-3):13-9. doi: 10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2004.02.003.
16. James S, Renjith VR. Risk assessment and vulnerability
analysis of liquefied natural gas (LNG) regasification terminal.
Process Integr Optim Sustain. 2021;5(1):99-121. doi:
10.1007/s41660-020-00138-3.
17. Khorram R. Modeling the consequences release of cyanogen
agents in Bushehr nuclear power plant neighborhood using
PHAST, ALOHA and WISER software. Iran Occupational
Health. 2020;17:4. [Persian].
18. Yang R, Gai K, Yang F, Zhang G, Sun N, Feng B, et al. Simulation
analysis of propylene storage tank leakage based on ALOHA
software. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2019;267(4):042038.
doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/267/4/042038.
19. Adhitya A, Srinivasan R, Karimi IA. Supply chain risk
identification using a HAZOP-based approach. AIChE J.
2009;55(6):1447-63. doi: 10.1002/aic.11764.
20. Ion IV, Ene A. Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions from
reservoirs: A review. Sustainability. 2021; 13(21): 11621.
doi:10.3390/su132111621.
21. Hart C, Koupal J, Giannelli R. EPA’s Onboard Analysis
Shootout: Overview and Results. Washington, DC: National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; 2002.
22. Sayin C, Hosoz M, Canakci M, Kilicaslan I. Energy and
exergy analyses of a gasoline engine. Int J Energy Res.
2007;31(3):259-73. doi: 10.1002/er.1246.
23. Jiang X, Mira D, Cluff DL. The combustion mitigation of
methane as a non-CO2 greenhouse gas. Prog Energy Combust
Sci. 2018;66:176-99. doi: 10.1016/j.pecs.2016.06.002.
24. Kanchanapiya P, Limphitakphong N, Pharino C, Chavalparit
O. Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and reduction
from the petrochemical industry in Thailand. Greenhouse Gas
Measurement and Management. 2014;4(2-4):161-77. doi:10.
1080/20430779.2015.1008362.
25. Gonzalez GA. Pluralism by the rules: conflict and cooperation
in environmental regulation Edward P. Weber. Am Polit Sci
Rev. 1999;93(2):461-2. doi: 10.2307/2585437.
26. Yadav R, Chaudhary S, Yadav BP, Varadharajan S, Tauseef
SM. Assessment of accidental release of ethanol and its
dangerous consequences using ALOHA2020. In: Advances in
Industrial Safety. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 165-72. doi:
10.1007/978-981-15-6852-7_14.
27. Flessa H, Ruser R, Dörsch P, Kamp T, Jimenez MA, Munch
JC, et al. Integrated evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions
(CO2, CH4, N2O) from two farming systems in southern
Germany. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2002;91(1-3):175-89. doi:
10.1016/s0167-8809(01)00234-1.
28. Brown JD. Statistics corner: questions and answers about
language testing statistics: reliability of surveys. Shiken: JALT
Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter. 1997;1(2):17-9.
29. Carrier MR, Dalessio AT, Brown SH. Correspondence
between estimates of content and criterion‐related validity
values. Pers Psychol. 1990;43(1):85-100. doi: 10.1111/
j.1744-6570.1990.tb02007.x.
30. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews
are enough? An experiment with data saturation and
variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59-82. doi:
10.1177/1525822x05279903.
31. Fan A, Yan J, Xiong Y, Shu Y, Fan X, Wang Y, et al. Characteristics
of real-world ship energy consumption and emissions based
on onboard testing. Mar Pollut Bull. 2023;194(Pt A):115411.
doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115411.
32. Penelas AD, Pires JC. Hazop analysis in terms of safety
operations processes for oil production units: a case study.
Appl Sci. 2021;11(21):10210. doi: 10.3390/app112110210.
33. Giardina M, Morale M. Safety study of an LNG regasification
plant using an FMECA and HAZOP integrated methodology.
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2015 35,
35-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2015.03.013.
34. Imamura T, Yoshida Y, Ota Y, Naito K, Sugawa O. Full-scale
experiment to evaluate the combustion hazard of refrigerants
with low global-warming potential in a conceivable accident
scenario. Int J Refrig. 2017;82:461-9. doi: 10.1016/j.
ijrefrig.2017.06.004.
35. Beyer J, Trannum HC, Bakke T, Hodson PV, Collier TK.
Environmental effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: a
review. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;110(1):28-51. doi: 10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2016.06.027.
36. Cho SH, Tanaka K, Wu J, Robert RK, Kim T. Effects of nuclear
power plant shutdowns on electricity consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions after the Tohoku Earthquake. Energy
Econ. 2016;55:223-33. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2016.01.014.
37. Annamalai K, Thanapal SS, Ranjan D. Ranking renewable
and fossil fuels on global warming potential using respiratory
quotient concept. J Combust. 2018;2018:1270708. doi:
10.1155/2018/1270708.
38. Tong F, Jaramillo P, Azevedo IM. Comparison of life cycle
greenhouse gases from natural gas pathways for medium and
heavy-duty vehicles. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(12):7123-
33. doi: 10.1021/es5052759.
39. Cordes EE, Jones DO, Schlacher TA, Amon DJ, Bernardino
AF, Brooke S, et al. Environmental impacts of the deep-water
oil and gas industry: a review to guide management strategies.
Front Environ Sci. 2016;4:58. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2016.00058.
40. Monazami H. The role of management and organizational
culture in production systems and environmental performance
of the organization. BRANDAFARIN Journal of Management.
2021;2(19):1-16. [Persian].
41. Pusnik M, Al-Mansour F, Sucic B, Gubina AF. Gap analysis
of industrial energy management systems in Slovenia. Energy.
2016;108:41-9. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.10.141.