Specified security risk factor table (SRFT) for Qalhat LNG export terminal (i.e. Zone B)
| Security risk factors | Range of security points | Security experts’ ratings | Defuzzyfied scores | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LNG terminal’s location | Rural (0,0,1,2) | Urban (1,2,3,4) | High density (3,4,5,5) | Urban | 2.5 |
| The visibility status of the LNG terminal | Not visible (0,0,1,2) | Less visible (1,2,3,4) | Highly visible (3,4,5,5) | Highly visible | 4.22 |
| Size of the nominated T-jetty | Medium (0,0,1,2) | Large (1,2,3,4) | Very large (3,4,5,5) | Very large | 4.22 |
| Size of the LNG ships | Medium (0,0,1,2) | Large (1,2,3,4) | Very large (3,4,5,5) | Very large | 4.22 |
| Tanker ships traffic | Low (0,0,1,2) | Medium (1,2,3,4) | High (3,4,5,5) | Medium | 2.5 |
| Port’s ownership | Private (0,0,1,2) | Public/private (1,2,3,4) | Government (3,4,5,5) | Public/private | 2.5 |
| Presence of terrorists groups in region | Low quantity (0,0,1,2) | Medium quantity (1,2,3,4) | Large quantity (3,4,5,5) | Medium quantity | 2.5 |
| Worst impact on-site/port facility | Low (0,0,1,2) | Moderate (1,2,3,4) | Severe (3,4,5,5) | Severe | 4.22 |
| Worst impact off-site/port facility | Low (0,0,1,2) | Moderate (1,2,3,4) | Severe (3,4,5,5) | Moderate | 2.5 |
| History of security incidents in port | Nil (0,0,1,2) | Few (1,2,3,4) | Frequent (3,4,5,5) | Nil | 0.78 |
| Meteorological conditions | Good (0,0,1,2) | Moderate (1,2,3,4) | Bad (3,4,5,5) | Good | 0.78 |
| Target identification – chemical – by terrorists: | None | Minimum | Present | ||
| Chemical weapon (CW) agents | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | None | 0.78 |
| Listed chemicals of concern | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | None | 0.78 |
| Chemicals of extreme toxicity | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | None | 0.78 |
| Existing security measures: | High level | Ordinary | Poor/none | 0.78 | |
| Access control from land | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Access control from sea | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Perimeter protection | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Mitigation potential | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Proper lighting (All over the port) | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Use of metal detector/X-ray/ CCTV (at entrance and at all critical locations) | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Pre-arrival security control of ships | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Security inspection of ships in terminals before cargo operations begin | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Employees preparedness, awareness and pieces of training | Well prepared (0,0,1,2) | Average (1,2,3,4) | Poor (3,4,5,5) | Well prepared | 0.78 |
| Reliability and status of readiness of emergency units e.g. health, safety, environment, security | Well prepared (0,0,1,2) | Average (1,2,3,4) | Poor (3,4,5,5) | Well prepared Total score | 0.78 41.86 |
| Security risk factors | Range of security points | Security experts’ ratings | Defuzzyfied scores | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LNG terminal’s location | Rural | Urban | High density | Urban | 2.5 |
| The visibility status of the LNG terminal | Not visible | Less visible | Highly visible | Highly visible | 4.22 |
| Size of the nominated T-jetty | Medium | Large | Very large | Very large | 4.22 |
| Size of the LNG ships | Medium | Large | Very large | Very large | 4.22 |
| Tanker ships traffic | Low | Medium | High | Medium | 2.5 |
| Port’s ownership | Private | Public/private | Government | Public/private | 2.5 |
| Presence of terrorists groups in region | Low quantity | Medium quantity | Large quantity | Medium quantity | 2.5 |
| Worst impact on-site/port facility | Low | Moderate | Severe | Severe | 4.22 |
| Worst impact off-site/port facility | Low | Moderate | Severe | Moderate | 2.5 |
| History of security incidents in port | Nil | Few | Frequent | Nil | 0.78 |
| Meteorological conditions | Good | Moderate | Bad | Good | 0.78 |
| Target identification – chemical – by terrorists: | None | Minimum | Present | ||
| Chemical weapon (CW) agents | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | None | 0.78 |
| Listed chemicals of concern | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | None | 0.78 |
| Chemicals of extreme toxicity | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | None | 0.78 |
| Existing security measures: | High level | Ordinary | Poor/none | 0.78 | |
| Access control from land | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Access control from sea | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Perimeter protection | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Mitigation potential | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Proper lighting (All over the port) | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Use of metal detector/X-ray/ CCTV | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Pre-arrival security control of ships | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Security inspection of ships in terminals before cargo operations begin | (0,0,1,2) | (1,2,3,4) | (3,4,5,5) | High level | 0.78 |
| Employees preparedness, awareness and pieces of training | Well prepared | Average | Poor | Well prepared | 0.78 |
| Reliability and status of readiness of emergency units e.g. health, safety, environment, security | Well prepared | Average | Poor | Well prepared | 0.78 |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.