The race to Armageddon

Eventually, it will go wrong. 100% sure. Potentially catastrophically, as the below examples illustrate. We just have to throw the dice often enough.

The only question is: which scenario wins the race? 

Enschede, May 13, 2000. In the storage of S.E. Fireworks a fire broke out in a warehouse where 900 kilograms of fireworks were stored. The fire spread to containers outside which contained even more fireworks. Eventually, the main bunker was affected and it exploded. Due to the enormous amount (177 tons) of fireworks stored in the bunker, which was located in the middle of residential area Roombeek, the explosion killed 23, wounded 950 and and 200 homes destroyed. Some of the storage was illegal and did not meet regulations.

Moerdijk, January 5, 2011. A devastating fire erupts in chemical storage facility Chemiepack in Moerdijk, Netherlands. Regardless of the ignition source, the catastrophic spreading of the fire was caused by the excess amount of resins stored at the facility, far exceeding the permits of the facility. Obviously, the resins stored there were very flammable, as must have been known to the operators of the facility. Yet this dangerous cocktail was stored there, and this was not a temporary lapse but a more or less permanent situation. And, on January 5, the vast amounts of chemicals finally found their spark: a technician used a blowtorch to defrost a frozen pump. 20 firefighters injured, a further 150 cases of long term health issues, a harbor full of chemicals, farmlands covered in toxic soot, 71 million euros damage.

Beirut, August 4, 2020. A staggering 2700 tons of Ammonium Nitrate has been stored for over 6 years in a harbor warehouse after the cargo of a ship was offloaded after technical difficulties in 2013. The owner of the ship has abandoned the ship and cargo. The cargo has been stored in the warehouse ever since, regardless of harbor officials reporting the dangerous situation to their superiors at least 5 times. A fire broke out on the 4th of August in a facility adjacent to the warehouse. At this time, the source of the fire is unknown. The vast amount of dangerous material caught fire and exploded. The explosion may be the biggest the world has witnessed since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The damage is to the city is beyond imagination. Possibly hundreds killed, thousands wounded, hundreds of thousands homeless. Half the city in ruins.

My point is, if there is a latent hazardous situation, we have basically 3 scenarios:

1. We see the hazard, we acknowledge the inherent potential consequences and take action. We remove the latent hazard altogether. That’s not quite the same as take safety measures, though. Only taking safety measures while allowing the hazardous situation itself to persist will, in time, lead us to either scenario 2 or 3.
2. In due time the company ceases to exist (due to the nature of all human endeavors: they are not infinite), stops all operations and thus the hazard is removed (assuming we clean up after ourselves...). Eventually this happens to all companies in the near or (very) distant future. Bankruptcy, being overtaken by progressing technologies, or just being outdated... At some point the Egyptians have stopped building pyramids. 
3. We allow the situation to persist. We may, or may not, take safety measures to reduce the chance that the hazard manifests itself. As long as we don’t remove the source, there is a remaining residual risk, however small that individual risk may be. If we continue to allow this situation long enough, eventually the hazard finds a hole in the proverbial Swiss Cheese Model and a spark makes it through. Eventually, the concept ‘chance’ shows its dark side. If we keep throwing dice long enough, eventually we we hit 6 several times in a row. Low chance, big surprise. A technician with a blow torch, a lightning strike, a breached safety precaution, or any other source. Eventually an ignition source will present itself. All it takes is time...

The question is which scenario wins the race? Which comes first? Let’s pray it’s scenario 1. If not, I’m happy with scenario 2, but we’re taking chances here. If the natural ending of the organization takes enough time, we may give fate enough throws of the dice for scenario 3: Armageddon.

Unfortunately in my line of work, I’ve encountered many companies associated with ‘High Risks’ who are betting on scenario 2. A 50 year old oil terminal in a Dutch harbor, a gold mine in South East Europe with a lake full of toxic acid behind a dam... I’ve seen many potential catastrophes held back by man made safety measures.

I bet the management of Nornickel thought: that’s not going to happen on our watch. Until early June, 2020 their dam broke, spilling over 20,000 tons of diesel in the Ambarnaya river in the Arctic circle. That day, just like in the examples above, scenario 3 had thrown the dice enough times.

As long as our companies keep betting on scenario 2, we will see more of scenario 3. We just have to wait. But not that long, because we do not have just one dice. Spread all over the world, mankind has fabricated thousands of dice and we’re throwing them every day. You do the maths...

Sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/10/three-arrested-over-huge-fuel-spill-in-the-arctic-circle

https://nos.nl/collectie/13846/liveblog/2342915-dodental-opgelopen-naar-135-libanontribunaal-stelt-uitspraak-uit

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuurwerkramp_in_Enschede

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_Moerdijk_5_januari_2011