According to Giroux (2013) the increase in attacks against oil and gas installations requires a new discussion on the issue of security. She argues that a new security culture, new concepts, a new understanding and a more holistic approach to security risk in the oil and gas industry are needed. Effective strategies were not in place, but as a result of the In Amenas incident the industry did engage in discussion on the issue (Giroux, 2013). The unprecedented scale of the attack against In Amenas led to a boost in security spending by other companies in the area, such as Total SA and Royal Dutch Shell. The new threat represented by the attack on In Amenas caused what a senior industry executive operating in the whole North African region called a “sea change in the reality of risk” (Faucon et al. 2013). A clear illustration of the impact of the attack on the industry is that after the attack several major oil and gas companies and government officials from a number of countries met during the World Economic Forum in Davos where new security measures were discussed (Stoltenberg og Cameron sammen mot terror, 2013). The CEO of Shell, Peter Voser, stated that some initiatives were under way and that Shell was in the process of working on the mechanisms needed, but at the time of the interview this had not been completed (Faucon et al. 2013). That things were happening was also confirmed by Steven Colville (Zarroli, 2013), President of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, a forum for the oil and gas drilling industry; he stated that in his member companies there are people that constantly work on security issues, but this incident had forced them to review their security measures.
There is a difference between the big international oil and gas companies such as BP, which have been involved in volatile regions all over the world for a long time, and the smaller companies such as Statoil, which have only recently started to invest outside Norway. Even though BP had a comprehensive internal security system in place, this was not sufficient to prevent the attack at In Amenas. The Statoil report published after the incident, together with the findings from Ernst & Young and KPMG, illuminates some of the tendencies that were present in the way oil and gas companies dealt with political- security risk. Many have seen the In Amenas incident as a wake-up call for oil and gas companies, and there is general consent this would lead to an increase in spending on security measures (Jegarajah, 2013; Gjelten, 2013; Faucon, 2013). However, as stated by BP´s director of communication, David Bickerton (cited in Golob, 2013): “What remains to be seen is if the extractives industry will re-examine its risk assessments and risk management processes in the wake of the In Amenas incident and other similar crises.”
In Amenas has been an eye-opener for Statoil and other companies, not only those located in Northern Africa, but for all oil and gas companies operating in volatile environments all over the world. Due to the severity of the attack it is possible that companies will place more focus on the risk of terrorism. It is hard to say whether this will include a broader political-security risk approach or just provide another boost for measures to physically protect, but there are signs that point to an increased focus on political-security risk. At the time of writing Statoil is showing a willingness to invest more thoroughly in political-security risk through the creation of a new risk unit. Only time will tell whether this division will be actively used, or whether it will slide back into the same role as the old risk unit. However, at the moment, and with In Amenas fresh in mind, it is likely that Statoil will focus more on political-security risk than ever before.
There is however little evidence in the annual reports of the major oil companies after the attack that indicates an increased focus on security with regard to terrorism. This is not to say that here is no focus on terrorism, but it might indicate that the In Amenas attack had a short-term effect on the industry, which began to fade when the incident became more distant. As mentioned earlier, the industry was more engaged in discussions about security after the attack, but according to Giroux (2013) there have only been some minor efforts to formulate new security strategies. In her work she has
seen few strategies that are new. There have been small changes in the way oil and gas companies operate and new ways of looking at safety and security, but there is still a long way to go. Except for the corporate changes in Statoil (with the forming of a new risk unit) and an improved focus on internal communication, there have been few major visible changes in the oil and gas industry when it comes to developing new security risk strategies. However the findings in the Ernst & Young (2014) survey, which showed an increased focus on terrorism as a risk factor; this might indicate that changes will occur, but this is a process that will develop over a longer period than is possible to examine in this research study.
4.5 Factors Contributing to the Attack in In Amenas and the Unsuccessful