Mokhtari Et Al. - 2020 - Vulnerability Assessment of Offshore Terminals in The Sultanate of Oman The Case of A Security Audit For SPM Termin

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/357367279
Vulnerability assessment of offshore terminals in the Sultanate of Oman: The

case of a security audit for SPM Terminal of Mina al Fahal
Article · September 2020
CITATIONS READS
0 29
6 authors, including:
Mehrdad Behforouzi Arife Tugsan Isiacik Colak

International Maritime College International Maritime College of Oman
11 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS 19 PUBLICATIONS 25 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Remote Sensing of Optically Complex Waters View project
Offshore Renewable Energy View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mehrdad Behforouzi on 28 December 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Maritime Crime & Security (IJMCS), Volume 1 Issue 2 September 2020
Vulnerability assessment of offshore terminals in the Sultanate of Oman:

The case of a security audit for SPM Terminal of Mina al Fahal
Kambiz Mokhtari
Mehrdad Behforouzi
Kais Ali Hassan
SDS Dadwal
Arife Tugsan Colak
Maritime Department
International Maritime College Oman (IMCO), Sohar, Sultanate of Oman
Keywords
Fuzzy Set Theory; Petrochemical Seaports and Offshore Terminals; Security Risk Management; Security
Threat Analysis; Security Vulnerability Analysis; Sultanate of Oman.
Abstract
Nowadays, the pressure for enhanced attention to critical infrastructure security and the focused
concern on threats emanating from both domestic and foreign terrorist groups have fostered new challenges
for Petrochemical Seaports and Offshore Terminals (PSOTs). These tendencies dictate to maintain
comprehensive security regimens that can be integrated with national and international strategies to support
the country’s security against terrorism. Therefore, the need for a Security Risk Management (SRM)
programme will be an essential part of the business of running a seaport particularly if the addressed port or
terminal is handling hazardous chemicals produced from a nearby plant or refinery for export purposes. As a
result, by the use of a case study in this paper, the identified security risk factors for an offshore Single Point
Mooring (SPM) terminal located inshore side of the seaport of Mina al Fahal in Sultanate of Oman will be
assessed by introducing its designated Security Risk Factor Table (SRFT) in order to examine the
vulnerability of the addressed terminal. Consequently, the proposed framework can be used by intelligence
analysts or port security and risk managers for the protection of these critical infrastructures. Suitable
mitigation measures and further treatments for lessening the impact of a successful terrorist attack or
potential likelihood of other threats in PSOTs facilities will be studied carefully.
Corresponding author: Kambiz Mokhtari

Email address for corresponding author: [email protected]
First submission received: 15th April 2020
Revised submission received: 20th July 2020
Accepted: 18th September 2020
1. Introduction
PSOT security is an issue and there is legally mandatory framework for all PSOTs to follow (i.e.
maritime related conventions). In addition, as a part of marine and process industries, PSOTs are critical
infrastructures for the operation of all nations’ economies, which can influence their financial structures
and competitiveness on the international level. These logistics essentials can afford primary support to oil
and gas, power, transport, agriculture, and manufacturing industries in any country. Nevertheless, these
essential components of international transport in the past have not been so far subjected to an inclusive
governmental regulatory due diligence and/or security supervision. In this view, the terrorist attack of
9/11, 2001 was the former paradigm-shifting occurrence for transport systems’ security in common. For
the maritime industry, that event has prompted remarkable shifts in the focused perspectives on security
12 A Journal of the Centre for Business & Economic Research (CBER) www.cberuk.com
now required by anyone even remotely associated with the operation and management of ports and
terminals security, as well as the ships, adjacent facilities or plants, multimodal transports, the people and
employees involved (Sutton, 2014).
Furthermore, after 9/11 the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code was ratified
and incorporated into Chapter Eleven of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS) 1974 of the
International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Because of this fact, the ISPS Code has been imposed
internationally by the IMO since July 2006, and all the member states had to act per the addressed Code.
The execution of the Code since July 2006 assists port facilities to supervise their security levels.
Many of the seaports and offshore terminals are located next to petrochemical complexes such as oil
and gas refineries, fertilizer production and different chemical plants or even power generators.
Otherwise several of them are in the form of complexes particularly for exporting or/and importing of
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), crude oil, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) plus a variety of dangerous
petrochemical commodities such as ammonia, naphtha and so on. Even some of these terminals are in the
form of a fixed installation or floating offshore terminal positioned in the middle of the sea used for
similar reasons. Any intentional or accidental discharge or awful event of such release of harmful
materials can massively jeopardize the health and safety of employees, the community and it can cause
serious damage to the environment. Accidental releases can result from the potential mistakes within the
facilities or even as a result of natural catastrophes. Accidents happen when employees make a mistake or
due to equipment failures (Chemical Safety.Com (CSC), 2018).
Natural disasters are events such as tsunami, earthquake, volcanic activity, flooding, a heavy
rainstorm, windstorms, revolving tropical storms etc. all of which can have a destructive consequence on
the PSOTs. Alternatively, intentional releases can result from intended and malicious operations.
However, all of the addressed events (i.e. above mentioned probable accidents in PSOTs and/or natural
disasters) whether they are as a result of accidental or intentional acts can lead to toxic releases, fires,
explosions and finally can cause in multiple fatalities, economic losses, property and environmental
damages (Rubin and Cutter, 2019).
As PSOTs handle dangerous goods and products regularly, they can simply become possible
targets for intentional attacks under the main three categories, i.e. terrorism, sabotage and those by
members of the community living in the region near the port facility. Terrorism is perhaps the form of
attack that the public mainly fears, not least for the reason that terrorists globally would like to create such
panic. In addition, terrorists often have much larger destructive means than other malicious individuals,
thus giving them the potential to cause lots of harm, to plan and commit acts of terrorism over a long
period of time. In the case of sabotage, the aggressor can cause a very hostile condition, but still, it is
supposed to be indented for a worse case. For the case of the community members’ security violations
such as theft; the addressed members may desire to cause harm and would not generally like to cause a
disaster (Mokhtari, 2020).
Accidental events are outside the scope of this paper, and they will not be discussed here. They can
be examined under process safety, process risk or reliability engineering but not under the heading of
SRM. The intentional events discussed above i.e. only the three categories of deliberate anti-security acts
will be discussed in this paper for the purpose of the PSOTs. Therefore, a SRM framework will be
introduced in the next section to overcome the security challenges within the PSOTs.
The main aim of this paper is to propose a generic SRM framework to assess and prioritise the
identified security risk factors (threats) within the PSOTs. Moreover, this work consists of the following
sections. In the next section, brief literature related to the SRM will be reviewed. In Section 3, the fuzzy set
theory to be used in this paper will be explained. Section 4 proposes a generic framework and
methodology for the SRM of PSOTs. Section 5 is a case study conducted to validate the proposed
methodology. Lastly, Section 6 will discuss the conclusions and suggestions.
2. Security risk management
As per Borodzicz (2005) the ancient philosophers of Egypt, Greece and China were certainly not
only between members of early civilizations to have been concerned about security, but several forms of
security must also have been the origin for these early civilizations to exist. Furthermore, “the
relationship between risk and security is perhaps more than simply a linguistic turn. Indeed, security can
be seen as an element of risk management in a holistic sense; Borodzicz (2005); page: 23”. From a PSOT
risk perspective, security threat can be viewed reasonably as just another hazardous exposure. Although
SRM may be viewed as expenditure against the operation, it also stands for a significant threat if not
managed thoughtfully. Therefore, managing PSOTs’ security risk factors as a loss prevention activity can
assist a broader appraisal of PSOTs’ exposure. As discussed earlier, this could acknowledge terrorists’
threats, but it could also lead to more security issues. Such losses could be the result of both external and
internal terrorists’ crime, but they could also initiate from an accident with no connection to criminal
activities.
Terrorist attacks such as those which occurred in New York (2001), Bali (2002), Madrid (2004),
Mumbai (2008), Paris (2015), London (2017), U.A.E (2019), Gulf of Oman (2019) and so on are examples
that can reoccur again in any place at any time even in PSOTs. A terrorist attack on a marine port,
particularly if several such attacks take place at the same time, can also disturb the countries’ economies.
Marine ports tend to be extensive and large, so it is not likely that any attack would demolish a marine
port’s infrastructure. Nevertheless, an attack could interrupt a transportation system for a significant
period and would most likely lead to a postponement of all activities at ports until security measures were
reassessed and improved. Though, in the case of petrochemical and process facilities if they are situated
nearby or within the terminals’ or ports’ boundaries, the overall view on security from the point of view
of the PSOT will be changed.
These types of marine ports and terminals will be considered as petrochemical plants rather than
being explained like an ordinary transportation hub. In this case, approximately the same security threats,
vulnerabilities, and hazards (i.e. risk factors) relevant to process industries with slight changes will be
applied to these critical infrastructures. Additionally, there is a potential security risk due to the harmful
nature and quantity of products and goods being transported by vessels, marine ports and terminals,
intense processing conditions of pressure and temperature, and value of the produced goods to the
country. Terrorists have sufficient information such as the position of dangerous chemicals, tank farms,
pipelines, bypass valves, important safety and warning systems, emergency stops/shutdown devices etc,
that they may make use of them to cause contaminated releases, fires and explosions. This can lead to
severe impacts on the health and safety of people, the economy, environmental damages and pollution as
well as fatalities in on-site and/or off-site seaports’ areas (CSC, 2018; Matteini, et al. 2018 and Morenoa, et
al. 2018).
Nevertheless, the theoretical approach towards a generic SRM for PSOTs in this paper aims to
identify the threats resulting from terrorism. The proposed framework also establishes suitable security
procedures like for assets characterisation, assessing the security risk factors (threats), security threat
assessment, vulnerability assessment and to take proper countermeasures against the identified and
assessed threats. For this reason, a generic SRM framework for PSOTs can be illustrated in Figure 1as
follows:
Phase 1: Assets Characterization
hguyg8EETHGUGEEnvio
Phase 2: Threat Assessment
nmentenvironment
Phase 3: Threat Evaluation via Risk Assessment Matrix
Fuzzy
Phase 4: Vulnerability Assessment
Phase 5: Security Risk Factor Table (SRFT) Model
Phase 6: Security Measures
Phase 7: Security Risk Treatment
Figure 1: A generic SRM framework for PSOT

In overall security threats such as terrorists’ deliberate acts on a processing facility like a PSOT can
be avoided or reduced if the security related determinant factors such as asset, vulnerability and threat in
a processing facility can be carefully classified and assessed in advance. This can be reached by a
deliberate and well-planned programme (e.g. SRM) as a security procedure which can be designed to stop
or decrease the development of a terrorist attack (i.e. security incident). The addressed security
determinant factors signify that if any of these associated elements are adequately halted or mitigated the
risk of a security incident by terrorists can be avoided or reduced. This can be fulfilled whether by
accurately knowing which types of assets in a PSOT are critical ones or by undertaking a proper
vulnerability assessment and/or threat assessment to stop and decrease the level of the vulnerabilities or
security threats. For the purpose of the addressed security related determinant factors as illustrated in
Figure 1, i.e. Phases of 1, 2 and 4 which are used for assets characterisation, threat assessment and
vulnerability assessment correspondingly, will be dealt with individually in Section 4.
3. Fuzzy set theory
Primarily fuzzy set theory was initiated by Zadeh (1965) to handle imprecision of data and human
judgement, which was oriented to the consistency of uncertainty, resulting from vagueness. Therefore, a
major contribution of fuzzy set theory is its capability of representing vague data. Moreover, the fuzzy set
is a class of objects with a continuum of grades of membership. Such a set is characterised by a

membership (characteristic) function, which allocates to every object a grade of membership. The theory
furthermore allows mathematical operators and programming to apply to the fuzzy domain. Moreover, a
fuzzy set is an extension of a crisp set. Crisp sets only permit full membership or non-membership, while
fuzzy sets permit partial membership. It is possible to utilize different fuzzy numbers depending on
circumstances, and in practice, triangular and trapezoidal fuzzy numbers are used (Marco, 2018). In this
paper, fuzzy triangular numbers are utilised to deal with the threat matrix for the evaluation of the
potential security risk factors threatening a PSOT and to prioritise the threats. Then trapezoidal fuzzy
numbers will be used in SRFT for obtaining the overall security score of a PSOT. This will validate the
applicability of the fuzzy numbers in different situations.
There are various operations on fuzzy numbers. If two positive triangular fuzzy numbers of =
( , , ) and ( , , ) in which , , , , are real numbers subsequently under
fuzzy environments their basic operations such as their multiplication, i.e.  can be defined as follows
(Yang and Hung, 2007):
( , , ) ( , , )=( , , ) (1)
Other algebraic operations, further details about fuzzy sets, their membership functions and
linguistic variables can be found in Ross (2017).
The subjective linguistic variables, as explained in Steps 3 and 5 of Section 4, are used for
assessment of the security risk factors (threats) can be defined in terms of membership functions. A
membership function is a curve that defines how every one of objects or points (i.e. security risk factors),
e.g. high, medium, and low in the input space is mapped to a membership value. For example, a
membership value between 0 and 1 for triangular numbers to define fuzzy linguistic scales (five points) of
very high, high, medium, low and very low are illustrated in Figure 2. Furthermore, the mapped
membership value between 0 and 5 in case of the trapezoidal numbers for defining the fuzzy linguistic
scales (three points) of high, medium, and low are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 was formerly used in the
work of the Bajpai and Gupta (2005); further explanations can be found in their work. However, in this
paper, after its application, a different defuzzification method and the process will be used to obtain the
final result.
Figure 2: Fuzzy triangular membership functions Figure 3: Fuzzy trapezoidal membership functions
Source: Modified from Yang and Hung (2007) Source: Bajpaiand Gupta (2005)
Subsequently, as the results of the estimates carried out for this work are all in the form of fuzzy
numbers, an additional a defuzzification process must be carried out in order to change them into crisp
numbers. The centre of area defuzzification technique is chosen to be used for this purpose hereafter. This
method was developed in 1985 (Sugeno, 1999). It is the most frequently used method and is precise. This
technique can be utilized for triangular and trapezoidal fuzzy numbers as per the following formulas:
Triangular fuzzy number = (l, m, u) can be defuzzified to a crisp number of M by, i.e.
M= (2)
For a trapezoidal fuzzy number of = (l, m, n, u); i.e. M = (3)

4. Methodology to carry out the proposed SRM in PSOT
A suitable methodology, including seven steps, is illustrated in Figure 1. The depicted steps can be
easily applied to different PSOTs and their operations at varying degree of the feature as needed.
Therefore, SRM can be used as a tool to easily implement the requirements of ISPS, in a standardized way
across all PSOTs as follows:
Phase 1 – Characterisation: Characterize the facility or operation to understand what critical assets
need to be secured, their importance, and their infrastructure dependencies and interdependencies.
Therefore, it is required to divide the PSOTs into zones or areas and to characterise them in order to know
which critical assets needed to be secured, what are their importance and interdependencies and
supporting infrastructure (API, 2005; API, 2013 and Nolan, 2014).
For PSOTs apart from entering vessels, important properties like stored cargoes are principally
imported. Additionally, in export terminals where vessels work quickly alongside quays, there are many
specialised units and equipment such as port control tower or vessel traffic service/management, sound
or fog signals, lights, warehouses, breakwaters, dredgers or any other equipment and devices connected
or linked to the neighbouring processing plants or units, etc (OCIMF, 2012).
Phase 2 – Threat Assessment: Identify and characterize threats against those assets and evaluate the
assets in terms of attractiveness of the targets to each threat and the consequences if they are damaged,
compromised, or stolen. Hence it is required to undertake a threat assessment by classifying sources,
categories and determining the possibility of threats and to evaluate every possible threat within the
process zone (Nolan, 2014and Landucci, et al. 2017).
As Kamien (2012) describes, a threat assessment can be based on categories or sources of threats. In
this regard, the United States’ Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) focuses on the type of weapon that
terrorists can use explosive, biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear. Another option is to focus on
the sources of threat on any business and/or organization with the capability, motivation, and
opportunity to initiate a successful attack on their systems. Thus, it is essential to develop a variety of
scenarios that can be matched with probable types of attacks. In addition, each scenario should have
weapons, assets, and mode of delivery Kamien (2012). Table 1 illustrates examples of these sources of
threats whether they are based on external or internal sources.
Table 1: Examples of sources of threats in PSOTs

Internal External
Port and terminal employees International terrorists
Stevedores Domestic terrorists
Contractors/operators Saboteurs
Shippers/receivers/cargo owners Vandals
Agents/ship-owners Thieves
Customers/vendors Activists
Visitors
Ship’s crew and officers
Pilots
Source: based on Sutton (2014)

The below-mentioned threat categories are possible types of security risk factors in PSOTs due to
deliberate acts caused by terrorists as per IMO (2011) and Baybutt (2017):
• Release of hazardous cargo from ship and/or subsea pipelines inter-connections and causing
toxic gas release, fire, and explosion.
• Stealing of classified documents and information from an offshore facility.
• Destruction of offshore terminals’ and marine ports’ physical assets, e.g. subsea pipelines, and
tank farms.
• Causing interference on discharging and loading activities in ports and terminals by altering
control settings.
• Making dangerous circumstances by creating interference using valves, or adding pollutants,
poisons.
• Disturbing offshore terminal, port operators and guards.
• Robbery of harmful substances in order to use it somewhere else.
• Damaging of onshore cargo control rooms in ports and terminals and related gears.
• Halting safety and security units and systems.
• Halting port control and vessel traffic services/management centres.
• Stopping ships.
• Potential of explosives’ threats through an entered ship, terminal worker and third party entered
to port from outside.
• Cybersecurity attack threats.
• An attack to be carried out from vessel to terminal via using ship’s goods, i.e. to use a ship as a
mode of delivery.
• Along-range type of attack from air to port, e.g. via drones’ strikes, long-range missiles.
• An attack from seaside to port, e.g. via pirates or speed boats.
• An attack from the underwater surface to terminal facilities, jetties, and ships by subsea devices;
and
• A terrorist attack upon a ship from the shore side.
Factors like categories and quantity of goods handled or stored in port, weather conditions,
varieties mode of accesses to the port facility, terminal working hours etc. are amongst the factors which
can influence the threats’ likelihood. The likelihoods of the probable threats’ can be estimated by experts
while using the pre-defined triangular fuzzy numbers. Through a threat matrix described in Phase 3, the
calculated probabilities will be used for assessing and ranking of the security risk factors (threats) of a
PSOT. Moreover, in a PSOT the mentioned different terrorists’ acts can be organised in such a manner to
be carried out even by pirates who have travelled from remote places, asylums, or stowaways.
Phase 3 – Threat Evaluation via Risk Assessment Matrix: There are many assessments means and
tools to assist security risk management experts to calculate the different threats’ levels within the
particular facilities. Both quantitative and qualitative techniques are found helpful. Quantitative
techniques explain the risk by estimates, and a statistical target rate is compared with the result. On the
other hand, in qualitative techniques, the parameters used as opinion sources are subjective and estimated
by experts’ judgments. Selected method for the purpose of its application primarily depends on whether
the necessary risk reduction is specified in a numerical or a qualitative manner. The extent and degree of
the investigation would also be an influencing reason (Marszal and Scharpf, 2002).
The hazard or risk factor matrix, which for this paper will be called a security threat matrix, is one
of the most traditional risk evaluation tools because of its simplicity. The security threat matrix handles
frequency (likelihood) and consequence (impact or severity) of the security threats qualitatively, based on
a categorization of the security-related threat parameters. Figure 4 illustrates a classic threat matrix sketch
which is tailored for security risks assessment purposes. The likelihood and impact of security threats
make one axis each, enables the user to plot the situation under consideration in the diagram. If each box
in the drawing has an attached reduced security risk level (such as insignificant), the determination
procedure is straightforward. The consequence or impact categories may be expressed in the form of
human (individual’s safety), financial (loss or profit), or environmental damage. The risk types also
divided the threat impacts or severities into catastrophic, major, moderate, minor, and insignificant as per
the level of threat’s impact or severity. The likelihood categories are also divided into rare, unlikely,
possible, likely, and almost certain. The addressed categories can be chosen either qualitatively, using
experts’ judgments as described above and shown in Figure 4. However, quantitative methods (e.g. See
fuzzy sets in Section 3) can be used by experts to assess the security threat levels. In Figure 4, a range of
threat levels is illustrated. For instance, interception of the moderate impact and possible likelihood will
lead to medium-security risk (threat). That means the assessed security risk is considered tolerable.
Significant impact and possible likelihood will result in a high-security risk, while interception of the
catastrophic impact and almost certain likelihood will result in critical threat exposure.
As ABS (i.e. American Bureau Shipping) (2003) argues, a regular risk assessment and presentation
technique is simply used to multiply the likelihood (L) of each undesirable event by each severity (S) or
impact, and then sum these products for all cases considered in the evaluation. As a result, with respect to
the mentioned explanations, risk levels can be determined by use of the depicted parameters and via
using the below-mentioned Equation:
R = L× S (4)
Additionally, this definition demonstrates that if L and/or S, i.e. security risk parameters are used
in the form fuzzy numbers, then R will also be a fuzzy number (Anoop et al., 2006), which means:
, where  is a symbol of multiplication under fuzzy environments (5)
Figure 4: A classic risk evaluation matrix designed for threat assessments in PSOT
Source: MCS (2019)
As Buybott (2007) describes, a security risk (threat) matrix can be utilised to determine each one of
the security risk factors related to and/or contained by a facility without having a noticeable background
of different avoidance countermeasures that may be part of a specific security threat scenario. In this case,
the assessed threat levels can be used as an initial stage to assess the degree of a vulnerability assessment
that should be executed, as well as the levels of security countermeasures and safeguards that must be
maintained or to be employed at a preliminary stage. Accordingly, by a mix of both quantitative and
qualitative methods, security risk factors (threats) could be prioritised for further use and reasons. As
shown in Figure 2, appropriate fuzzy linguistic scales along with their membership functions have been
illustrated for the occurrence likelihoods. The same fuzzy numbers and scales can be employed for the
related occurrence impacts. That means a fuzzy triangular number of (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) as depicted in
Figure 2 can be used for both of the occurrence impacts of catastrophic and likelihood of very high.
For instance, as shown in Figure 3 if a security risk factor (threat) as per security expert’s choice has
occurrence likelihood ( ) of (0.00, 0.25, 0.50) i.e. possible and occurrence impact ( ) of (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) i.e.
major, the as per Equations 1 and 5 will be (0.00, 0.1875, 0.50). Nevertheless, as a result is a triangular
number, it can be defuzzified to acquire a crisp number based on Equation 2 which is equal to 0.23. The
same operation in this step must be carried out for all of the security-related threats on a case by case basis
to get a crisp number for everyone. Afterwards, they can be assessed and ranked based on their weights’
(crisp numbers) importance. Subsequently, based on their priorities, a comprehensive vulnerability
assessment can be designed and accomplished to maintain the projected SRM structure.
Phase 4 – Vulnerability Assessment: Classify possible security vulnerabilities that increase the
prospect that the threat will successfully carry out the act. Therefore, it is necessary to classify
vulnerabilities against each security risk factor (threat) by the use of brainstorming and using checklist
methods (API, 2013 and Sutton, 2014).
As Kamien (2012) explained, a vulnerability assessment is used to estimate the vulnerability of the
critical infrastructures in the circumstances, i.e. with a provided weapon and a provided target, the chance
that an attack will be victorious depends on the capability to discover it, the warning time, the system’s
response, and the ability of the attacker to overcome the response. During the evaluation of the addressed
security factors, it is essential to take into account, for each one of the targets, some existing
countermeasures, appropriate physical plans, geographical arrangements etc. That may avoid admission
to the addressed target, capacity to become aware of an attack in progress, or support in overcoming an
identified attack. In this regard according to Sutton (2014), many organisations and plants perform a
vulnerability assessment to classify and identify areas where they are mainly vulnerable, and to choose
how to recover.
The team that carries out and maintains a vulnerability assessment must be thoroughly familiar
with the engineering or business-related processes under inspection, e.g. highly skilled experts from
maintenance, production, administration, security divisions and/or risk management departments. For
instance, marine ports and terminals operator should not be selected to maintain and reassess a fertilizer
plant located inside of PSOTs. The typical security review and auditor panel should also have a
reasonable quantity of professionals from various organisations, for example, corporation employees,
experts, equipment designers and manufacturers and intelligence services regulators.
As per Nolan (2014); Argenti, et al. (2017); Baybutt (2017) and Yazdi (2018) three types of persons
are required to carry out a vulnerability assessment: (1) a team leader, (2) a recorder/scribe, and (3) the
experts. The experts are usually (1) the project manager or engineer who has planned and designed the
addressed plant/facility, (2) an individual who is knowledgeable with how the plant will be operated, e.g.
a safety and/or process engineer and (3) an individual familiar with loss prevention aspects or security-
related issues to the addressed plant. Vulnerability assessments will, in general, apply to all plants and/or
facilities situated within PSOTs. Nevertheless, there will be more concern to apply its review to highly
visible, expensive, and vital operations, plants and/or facilities.
As a vulnerability assessment is a qualitative form of evaluation, the subsequent processes must be
conducted by vulnerability assessment experts to accomplish a successful investigation within a PSOT:
Divide the PSOT areas into zones of diverse security levels, e.g. low-risk, moderate-risk, high-risk
and critical-risk zones. The main plan is to identify the significant locations in the terminals, refineries and
plants that can be possible targets, e.g. Ammonium production unit, product tanker vessels and tank
farms.
Discover the security risk factors from prospective terrorists in each zone.
Recognize the vulnerabilities within each zone. Develop various scenarios in which the realistic
threats identified through threat assessment could be understood.
Declare the most unpleasant potential severities on-site/off-site in case of a successful terrorist
attack to find out severity (S).
Inspect the effectiveness of the existing countermeasures for any specific security risk factor.
Propose additional security countermeasures to decrease likelihood (L) and severity (S) of a
terrorist attack if it was conducted effectively.
Phase 5 – Security Risk Factor Table (SRFT): The state of security in a plant and/or facility similar to
PSOT can be illustrated basically by the creation of an SRFT (Bajpai and Gupta, 2005 and CSC, 2018). In
SRFT, quite a few security-related risk factors that can shape the whole security of a PSOT are
demonstrated. After scoring the security risk factors listed in SRFT by experts or security auditors, using
the three points trapezoidal fuzzy numbers shown in Figure 3, the total score obtained from SRFT will
cause to make out and estimate the existing security risk level of a PSOT.
As per CSC (2018) SRFT can be used as a security risk evaluation device and based on Bajpai and
Gupta (2005) in the form of a pre-screening means to find out whether any more comprehensive threat
and vulnerability investigation is essential. The individual or panel making any SRFT have to be also
practically well-known with the facility and/or plant in question. Furthermore, the subsequent
descriptions are found important regarding the security risk factors being used in any SRFT.
Typically, terrorists and related groups focus on targets that can affect more extensive groups of
people. Therefore, a plant or facility located in countryside places is much less attractive than a place
similar to a PSOT situated close to a metropolitan area. Thus, being near to highly populated residents’
areas enhances the attractiveness of a plant or facility as a target. A facility like a port neighbouring a
major petrochemical tank farm is inherently at higher risk than any other. As large product carriers from
various destinations enter these marine ports, terrorists can map in advance their different methods to
make use of the addressed floating explosives as a delivery tool just to destroy the plants, refinery,
terminals and to harm nearby residents. Moreover, terrorist groups mainly attempt to create fear by
targeting larger, known corporations, such as larger, important organisations. A small and intermediate-
sized business/activity or private company in a country is less expected to be targeted than a plant or
facility classified under the ownership of a rich government (Kamien, 2012).
Visibility of security controls and countermeasures in a PSOT decreases its attractiveness as a
target. A terminal facility on its shore-side which has very rigid perimeter control with all entrance points
protected, having additional screening tools, e.g. video surveillance (i.e. CCTVs), sensors, guards and
patrols a is much more complicated target than a PSOT with no or less controlled during hours of
daylight. In coastal side, if a PSOT is not controlled and watched by its coast guard patrols is more prone
to a terrorist attack than a PSOT with having 24 hours security watch (e.g. attack to ships in port of
Fujairah in UAE on 2019). Based on the ISPS Code, there are three critical areas of concern (ICS, 2015):
• The employment of a vessel as a delivery device for conducting a terrorist attack in a terminal.
• A terrorist attack to a ship in marine ports’ terminals areas and/or port limits.
• Goods to be used as a mode of delivery for targets outside of the marine ports and terminals
areas.
Based on regulations declared in the ISPS Code, pre-arrival security paperwork and verifications on
tanker vessels as well as ships’ physical security inspections carried out by security officers in ports before
cargo operations start will decrease the likelihood of a probable attack to the port facility or visiting vessel
by terrorists.
Availability and existence of the weapons that terrorist groups possibly will utilize with having
biological, radiological, chemical, explosive, and radioactive properties to perform terrorist attacks in any
seaport will increase the security risk of the addressed facility. As the quantity of a specific target rises in
terms of size and area, the security risk will be enhanced, respectively. That means in a PSOT if the
capacity of target recognition by terrorists raises the security risks will rise also. Therefore, the availability
of the named weapons as targets in a PSOT will raise the security risk of the port facility. There is a range
of chemicals of fear, including Chemical Weapon (CW) agents such as hydrogen cyanide, chlorine,
mustard gas, and ammonia. Smallpox and anthrax are the most critical biological killers. Other organisms
are also of concern; they consist of bacteria such as anthrax or viruses such as yellow fever. Also, agents
having uranium properties might be employed in a “dirty bomb”. Whereas the risk of significant
radiological harm from a dirty bomb is much less than the risk of harm from the explosion, the
psychological shock of such an incidence on the impacted people will be significant. In this regard, health,
and safety professionals in PSOT’s should teach their workforce concerning the real magnitude of a
probable terrorist attack with the described character (HS, 2012). In this regard training of port labours
and workforces should be a part of the port facility’s risk management agenda. Indeed, more practical
exercises and drills will decrease the probabilities for a port facility to be selected as a target by terrorists
(OCIMF, 2012).
There is also worse case outcomes impact on a marine port and its nearby district due to any
terrorist attacks. Port facilities can be assessed as per the expansion of scenarios of the outcomes of a
terrorist event. To estimate the worst-case scenario and to assess the impact of the consequence on a
marine port and on its nearby places specialized experts are needed to rate these factors with awareness to
get rational results.
As per API (2013) and Sutton (2014), there exist other issues in a PSOT that should be taken into
consideration when making a SRFT such as visibility status of the ships o storage tanks used for storage
of the imported crude oil or LNG or storage of the processed highly dangerous substances for export and
internal use within the host country. If they are incredibly detectable and visible from nearby port
vicinities, this will enhance the perspective of an attack. Aside from visibility the capacity, volume,
number, and dimensions of the tank farms and visiting vessels also will have a significant role for an
attack to occur. Presence of terrorists in the area or neighbourhood of a PSOT, security conditions or
history of the PSOT with respect to the number of security occurrences taken place, etc play vital roles in
investigating a security level of a port facility. Finally, consistency and importance of readiness of the
emergency brigades referring to security, environment, safety, and health issues of PSOTs will have a vital
role after, throughout and before a successful terrorist attack. In this regard, the security reliability ratio
for a secure and reliable port facility can be defined as follows. A perfectly secure and reliable port facility
where there are no disruptive security events that could undermine the scheduled work within the port
and as per following formula, it should be equal to 1. This formula can be used by security experts for
rating and scoring the mentioned security risk factor within an SRFT.
Port Security Reliability Ratio = (6)
Phase 6 – Security measures: To list security safeguards against threats scenarios and to evaluate
them to see if the protective measures are adequate. Since many risk mitigation phases are used in most of
the industry-related applications, rings of protection were needed. Therefore, throughout the SRM of
marine ports, a similar technique can also be an appropriate one. For this purpose, the US Department of
Homeland Security (HS, 2012) describes that security tends to underline “rings of protection,” means to, if
possible, the most significant or most expensive assets should be located in the middle of concentric levels
of ever more severe security countermeasures. For instance, where it is practical, in a PSOT, electronic
control rooms of the processing plants should not be located beside the building’s reception area. Instead,
it should be placed deeper within the building to reach the control room, a terrorist would have to go
through and pass numerous rings of protection, for instance, a fence at the PSOT borders, an elevator with
key-controlled floor buttons, an alert receptionist, a locked external door and a locked door to the control
room. To verify if the rings of protection are well-organized, security plans must frequently be assessed
using preparation tests and security drills in which the port facility has to have persons who can take part
in the role of the invader to make out if the barriers work as normal. The addressed drills are applicable
on vessels entering into ports and terminals, e.g. to carry out the addressed drills in ports controls,
export/import terminals etc.
Based on IMO and under ISPS Code, security-related countermeasures in the form of rings of
protection for visiting vessels and port facilities are adapted by Security Level 1 (i.e. the level for which
minimum suitable protective security countermeasures shall always be preserved). Security Level 2 (i.e.
the level for which suitable extra protective security countermeasures shall be preserved for a while due
to heightened risk of a security event). Besides Security Level 3 (i.e. the level for which additional detailed
protective security countermeasures shall be preserved for a restricted period when a security event is
apparent or imminent, while it might not be likely to spot the exact target). Table 2 is the approach which
will be incorporated in the proposed method in this paper.
Table 2: Countermeasures and recommendations tailored for the final score while using an SRFT
Security risk Actual points ISPS security
Security Risk Treatment (Recommendations)
status obtained countermeasures
Low < 25 Level 1 The security risk is low. Maintain awareness
without excessive concern.
Moderate 25 - 48 Level 2 A moderate security risk is present. Review and

upgrade existing procedures. Maintain awareness
without excessive concern.
High 49 - 72 Level 3 Identify risk-drivers that can be reduced with

reasonable controls. Work with law enforcement
agencies to enhance security.
Extreme >72 Level 3 + State of high Initiate aggressive risk-reduction activity, in

alert conjunction with consultation with law
enforcement agencies.
Source: Adapted from IMO (2011), API (2013) and CSC (2018)
Phase 7 – Security Risk Treatment: To identify and evaluate security risk mitigation options and
reassess the situation to ensure adequate countermeasures (See Table 2 in Phase 6) are being applied.
Evaluate the appropriate response capabilities for security events and the ability of the operation or
facility to adjust its operations to meet its goals in recovering from the incident and to find out if the
treatments are appropriate.
Table 2 presents additional procedures and/or guidelines to be adhered to different security
surroundings, depending on which level of security a terminal or port facility is kept. Apart from taking
into consideration the issues e.g. health, safety, environmental factors, the incorporated guidelines must
be consistent with the elements for enhancing the security of a PSOT. For example, initiatives such as port
facility security plan (i.e. a plan developed to ensure the application of measures designed to protect the
port facility and ships, persons, cargo, cargo transport units and ship’s stores within the port facility from
risks of a security incident), emergency response plan and emergency preparedness plan apart from being
used as mitigation methods but necessary recommendations along with the essential countermeasures for
the purpose of key concepts such as how to detect, delay and response to a terrorist attack are also
included. Subsequently, after ranking the security risk factors by use of abovementioned steps such as
using a threat matrix or an SRFT, the required procedures and/or guidelines can be tailored and
implemented on a PSOT for this step.
5. Case study
The area shown in Figure 5 is an oil refinery and Mina al Fahal offshore terminal in Sultanate of
Oman, including the following zones:
Zone A: including Mina al Fahal refinery where crude oil is processed to make fuel products (e.g.
LPG, gas oil or diesel, gasoline, fuel oil and jet fuel); a tank farm consisting of 10 crude oil storage tanks
with a total storage capacity of 5 million barrels; power plants; metering facilities etc.
Zone B: including three Single Buoy Moorings (SBM) for offshore export of crude oil, two Coastal
Buoy Moorings (CBM) for export/import of refined petroleum products and a purpose-built harbour for
accommodating three tugs, a maintenance barge and pilot boat.
Figure 5: Google map of Mina al Fahal area
Table 3: Portrayal of Port of Mina al Fahal

Zone A (Refinery) Zone B (Offshore Terminal)
1Main Refinery units 1 Three SBMs (Single Buoy Moorings)
2 Power plants and electricity substations 2 Two CBMs (Coastal Buoy Moorings)
3 Crude oil metering units and inter-connections 3 Port Control and Pilots
4 Crude Oil Storage Tanks for delivery of crude oil to tankers for 4 Three Tugs
export and to Oman Refinery for refining and producing products
5 Storage Tanks for export/import products 5 One Maintenance Barge
6 Pipelines and pumps 6 One Pilot Boat
7 Gate 7 Block for Stevedores
8 Guardroom 8 A rigid inflatable fast response craft
9 Blocks for employees 9 A rigid inflatable anti-pollution boom

craft
10 Fire Brigades 10 Three Subsea pipelines for
export/import
11 Car parking area 11 A small size Harbour
12 Administrative Building 12 Administrative Building
Figure 6: Mina al Fahal Offshore Terminal in Zone B

Taking into consideration the proposed SRM methodology in this article Mina al Fahal port and
offshore Terminal in Sultanate of Oman have been separated into two different areas as shown in Figure 5
and/or depicted in Table 3. For this paper, only one of the zones (i.e. Zone B: Offshore Terminal) has been
addressed. To calculate the total security score of the addressed offshore terminal located at Zone B of
Mina al Fahal, it is essential to modify a new SRFT for this offshore terminal. The newly designed SRFT
(i.e. See Table 4) and the classified security risk factors (threats) are shown as follows (See Figure 4):
Table 4: Security Risk Factor Table (SRFT) designated for Mina al Fahal Offshore Terminal
Security risk factors Range of security points Security Defuzzyfi
Auditor’s ed Scores
ratings
Offshore terminal’s location Rural Urban High
(0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) Density Rural 0.78
(3,4,5,5)
Visibility status of ships and Not Visible Less Visible Highly

infrastructures (0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) Visible Highly Visible 4.22
(3,4,5,5)
Processed gas and liquid chemicals Low Medium High

storage (0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) Medium 2.5
Imported crude oil and natural gas Low Medium High

storage (0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) Medium 2.5
Range of shipping traffic Low Medium High

(0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) Medium 2.5
Terminal’s ownership Private Public/Priva Governme

(0,0,1,2) te nt Public/Private 2.5
(1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5)
Presence of terrorist’s groups in Low Medium Large

region quantity quantity quantity Medium 2.5
(0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) quantity
Worst impact on-site/offshore Low Moderate Severe

facility (0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) Moderate 2.5
Worst impact off-site/offshore Low Moderate Severe

facility (0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) Low 0.78
History of security incidents in Nil Few Frequent

offshore terminal (0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) Nil 0.78
Meteorological conditions Good Moderate Bad

(0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) Good 0.78
Target identification – chemical – by None Minimum Present

terrorists:
CW (Chemical Weapon) 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
Access control from mainland (0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) Ordinary 2.5
Access control from open sea (0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) Ordinary 2.5
Perimeter protection (0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) Ordinary 2.5
Mitigation potential (0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) Ordinary 2.5
Proper lighting (All over the (0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) Ordinary 2.5
SBM/CBM)
Use of metal detector/X-ray/ CCTV (0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) Ordinary 2.5
(at entrance and at all critical
locations)
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 (0,0,1,2) (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) High level 0.78
terminals before cargo operations
begin
Employees preparedness, awareness, Well Average Poor
and training prepared (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) Well prepared 0.78
(0,0,1,2)
Emergency units’ reliability and Well Average Poor
status of readiness, e.g. Quality, prepared (1,2,3,4) (3,4,5,5) Well prepared 0.78
health, safety, environment, security (0,0,1,2)
Total Score 42.80
Based on WPS (2019) Mina al Fahal is a coastal area in the Northeast of Oman, close to Muscat. This
port is operated and managed by Petroleum Development Oman LLC. The port was established near a
large oil developing and petrol processing plant, Petroleum Development Oman (PDO). It was renamed
from Saih al Maleh as the petroleum processing plant was developed. The cargo is loaded on to tankers
off Mina Al Fahal by the use of SBMs and subsea pipelines. The offshore draft is 29.2 meters, and loading
capacity is 85,000 metric tons per day. The storage capacity of the refinery is 650,000 barrels a day. Crude
oil is exported by sea in tankers. The offshore oil loading and unloading facilities include three SBMs and
two CBMs. The SBM-1 and SBM-2 are used for loading PDO’s crude or Oman Refinery’s long residue into
the ships. SBM-3 and the two CBMs are used for the import/export of refined products for Shell Oman
Marketing Company. There are also three tugboats and a maintenance barge. The export to ships is
planned in advance. Each ship stops onshore for about 3 days to receive crude. Crude loading rate starts
at a low flow rate initially for about 15 minutes and thereafter increased to normal flow rate. Offshore oil
spill response and firefighting equipment are also available at the terminal. They include an 8.5 m rigid
inflatable fast response craft fitted with 240 hp diesel engine and a 4.5 m rigid inflatable pollution boom
craft fitted with 38 hp diesel engine.
In addition, in Port of Mina Al Fahal predominantly, there is a gusting of wind in Easterly and
South-easterly directions and the addressed port is owned and shared both by the government and
private sectors. Until now there has not been at all even a single report evidencing any terrorist-related
incidents excluding attacks which occurred far from the port area such as multiple attacks carried out on
tanker ships in Gulf the of Oman and Port of Fujairah in U.A.E on 2019 (CNN, 2019). Traffic-related
circumstances, categories and quantity of hazardous cargoes are monitored by the involved bodies or
persons nominated by port authorities. Port facility is executing the ISPS Code constantly. Ship to port
security interface ISPS procedures and formalities are always maintained in very high intensity. After
consultations with experts and available literature relevant to potential threats along with the other
security risk factors which should be considered most important contributing factors affecting the
addressed port are all listed in the newly designed SRFT, i.e. Table 4.
Three Ex-Master Mariners with equivalent seagoing and shore-based managerial experiences in risk
management have been nominated to carry out this task with the purpose of the rating of the Mina al
Fahal offshore terminal for the addressed risk factors depicted in Table 4. The nominated experts have
used the fuzzy trapezoidal numbers illustrated in Figure 3 for the rating of the introduced security risk
factors. The fuzzy numbers used for equivalent linguistic scales listed in Figure 3 are: high (3,4,5,5),
medium (1,2,3,4) and low (0,0,1,2). After evaluation of all security risk factors employing the nominated
trapezoidal numbers, as they are all fuzzy linguistic scales they need to be defuzzified to get the
subsequent crisp numbers in the shape of scores before adding them all as one to get the final score. The
total security score at the end will be the final score of Mina al Fahal offshore terminal, which should be
taken into Table 2 for further examination. In this case study as the obtained total score for Mina al Fahal
offshore terminal is 42.80, by comparing the obtained security score after rating with the real security
points presented in Table 2 it will be determined that as this figure lies between the ranges of 25 to 48 its
security importance will be moderate. In this case, Mina al Fahal offshore terminal should maintain
security measures for level 2 as per the ISPS Code. The associated recommendations are shown in Table 2.
Furthermore, as it is shown in Table 4 identified risk factors, i.e. visibility status of the addressed
offshore terminal (i.e. ships and offshore facilities) with having the maximum score of 4.22 has to be
considered as an inherent risk factor of Mina al Fahal offshore terminal. Since the mentioned risk factor is
unavoidable in terms of its likelihood as an inherent risk factor (i.e. it always exists in Mina al Fahal
offshore terminal and its security risk cannot be decreased and/or eliminated permanently). As a result,
the maximum effort to lessen the intensity of such security hazard is only to decrease its occurrences
and/or severities probability (See Equation 4). In this case appropriate lookouts, surveillance and early
warning system integrated with efficient proper instructions or emergency preparedness plan must be
tailored by professionals and authorities such as vulnerability assessment experts to decrease the impact
and/or probability of such threat which the mentioned inherent security risk factors play an important
role by its contribution.
6. Conclusions and suggestions

Security of the offshore terminal facility is a regulatory binding for any nation and counterterrorism
activities are important undertakings. The security-related vulnerabilities and risk factors cannot be
eliminated, but they should be decreased. A proper SRM necessitates modifications in organisational
behaviour that takes time and needs knowledge if they are to be successful. The solution is to practise a
methodical approach to classify critical infrastructures, evaluate security risk factors, and make accurate
decisions for the supervision of the probable security threats. Consequently, it is vital to modify the SRM
plans to make them compatible with probable security-related outcomes by the available resources at
present. Most important outcomes of terrorism require carrying out an additional, comprehensive SRM.
In the course of a resource allocation practice based on complete and thorough vulnerability assessment
and/or threat analysis, efficient and effective management of the prospective security risk factors is
possible. Eventually in this study, a designed SRM framework tailored for Mina al Fahal Offshore
Terminal in Sultanate of Oman was established to manage the security threats which can result from any
probable terrorists’ attacks. The Case study in this paper illustrated how the proposed method can be
applied, the results obtained and tailored risk improvement recommendations. In fact, this is a tool that
can be used by all PSOTs to meet their legal requirements. For the future research, risk management
experts or specialists in offshore terminals and marine ports, in particular, those working in petrochemical
complexes or plants must maintain and incorporate the assessment carried out in this study with
resilience, business continuity and crisis management related research works. This, in reality, will assist
the offshore and marine industry to continue their operations and management even if there are
permanent dangers and/or existing security threats. As a result, future work would see further validation
on other case studies in theory, but also in practice through collaboration with industry.
Acknowledgements: This research was partially supported by the Asyad Group, Oman Shipping Company and
Petroleum Development Oman in the Sultanate of Oman.
References
ABS (2003), American Bureau Shipping. A guide for risk evaluations for the classification of marine-related facilities.
Available at:
https://ww2.eagle.org/content/dam/eagle/rules-and
guides/current/other/117_riskevalforclassofmarinerelatedfacilities/pub117_riskeval.pdf. Accessed on:
08.01.2019.
Anoop, M. B.; Balaji, R. K. and Gopalakrishnan, S. (2006), Conversion of probabilistic information into fuzzy sets for
engineering decision analysis. Computers and Structures. 84, pp:141–155.
API (2013), American Petroleum Institute. Security Risk Assessment Methodology for the Petroleum and
Petrochemical Industries. ANSI/API STD 780. Available At:
https://standards.globalspec.com/std/1603209/ansi-api-std-780.Accessed on: 15.12.2019.
API (2005), American Petroleum Institute. Security Guidelines for the Petroleum industry, Washington, DC, third
edition, 2005. Available at:
https://www.nj.gov/dep/enforcement/security/downloads/API%20Security%20Guidance%203rd%20Editio
n.pdf.Accessed on: 08.01.2019.
Argenti, F.; Landucci, G.; Cozzani, V. and Reniers, G. (2017), A study on the performance assessment of anti-terrorism
physical protection systems in chemical plants. Safety Science.94: 181–196.
Bajpai, S. and Gupta, J.P. (2005), Site security for chemical process industries, L. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 18, pp: 301-
309.
Baybutt, P. (2017), Issues for security risk assessment in the process industries. Journal of LossPrevention in the Process
Industries.49: 509-518.
Borodzicz, E.P. (2005), Risk, Crisis and Security Management. ISBN: 9780470867044.
CNN (2019) Cable News Network Report. Available at:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/30/middleeast/yemen-market-explosion-saada-intl/index.html. Accessed
on 19, October 2019.
CSC (2018, Chemical-Safety.Com Available at: www. Accessed on: 20.11.2018.
HS (2012), Homeland Security. Chemical Sector Security Awareness Guide. A Guide for Owners, Operators, and
Chemical Supply Chain Professionals. Available At:
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS-Chemical-Sector-Security-Guide-Sept-2012-
508.pdf. Accessed on: 15.12.2019.
ICS (2015), Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers, UK. Port and Terminal Operations and Management. ISBN: 978-1-
908833-63-1.
IMO (2011), International Maritime Organization. Measures to enhance maritime security. Maritime Security Manual
– Guidance for port facilities, ports, and ships. Maritime Safety Committee. Available at:
http://portalcip.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Guide-to-Maritime-Security-and-the-ISPS-Code-
2012.pdf. Accessed on: 15.12.2019.
Kahraman, C. (2001), Capital budgeting techniques using discounted fuzzy cash flows. In: Ruan, D.; Kacprzyk, J. and
Fedrizzi, M., Editors, Soft Computing for Risk valuation and Management: Applications in Technology,
Environment and Finance, Physica- Verlag, Heidelberg, pp: 375–396.
Kamien, D.G. (2012), Homeland Security Handbook. The McGraw-Hill companies. ISBN: 9780071790840.
Landucci, G.; Argenti, F.; Cozzani, V, and Reniersc, G. (2017), Assessment of attack likelihood to support security risk
assessment studies for chemical facilities. Process Safety and Environmental Protection.110: 102–114.
Marco, E.G.V.C. (2018). The likelihood interpretation as the foundation of fuzzy set theory. International Journal of
Approximate Reasoning. 90:333–340.
Marszal, E. and Scharpf, E. (2002), Safety Integrity Level Selection – Systematic Methods Including Layer of Protection
Analysis. The Instrumentation, Systems and Society (ISA). Research Triangle Park, NC.
Matteini, A.; Argenti, F.; Salzano, E. and Cozzani, V. (2018), A comparative analysis of security risk assessment
methodologies for the chemical industry. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, pp:1-17.
MCS (2019), Ministry of Central Services. Security risk assessment matrix. Government of Saskatchewan, Canada.
Available at: https://taskroom.sp.saskatchewan.ca/Documents/Threat-Risk-Assessment-Template.pdf.
Accessed on: 15.12.2019.
Mokhtari, K. (2020), RISK MANAGEMENT - A Guideline for QHSES and Risk Managers in marine ports and offshore
terminals. LAMBERT Academic Publishing in Germany; March 2020. ISBN: 9786202515603.
Morenoa, V. C.; Reniers, G.; Salzanoa, E, and Cozzani, V. (2018), Analysis of physical and cyber security-related
events in the chemical and process industry. Process Safety and Environmental Protection.116: 621–631.
Nolan, D.P. (2014), Safety and security review for the process industries. Application of HAZOP, PHA and What-If
Reviews. 4th Edition. ISBN: 9780323322959.
OCIMF (2012), Oil Companies International Marine Forum. Marine Terminal Management and Self-Assessment
(MTMSA). First Edition. Steamship international. ISBN: 9781856095501. Witherby publishing.
Ross, T. J. (2017), Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. Wiley publication. 4 th Edition. ISBN: 9781119235866.
Rubin, B. and Cutter, S. L. (2019), US Emergency Management in the 21 st Century: From Disaster to Catastrophe.
ISBN: 978-1138354654.
Sugeno, M. (1999), Fuzzy Modelling and Control, CRC press, Florida, USA.
Sutton, I. (2014), Process risk and reliability management. Operational integrity management. 2 nd Edition. Published
by Elsevier Inc. ISBN: 9780128016534.
WPS (2019), World Port Source. Available at:
http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/OMN_Port_of_Mina_al_Fahal_2305.php. Accessed on: 18.12.2019.
Yang, T. and Hung, C. C. (2007), Multiple-attribute decision-making methods for plant layout design problem,
Robotics and Computer-integrated manufacturing. 23, pp: 126–137.
Yazdi, M. (2018). An extension of the fuzzy improved risk graph and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for
determination of chemical complex safety integrity levels. International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics.25(4), pp: 551-561.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965), Fuzzy sets. Information and Control. 8, pp: 338–353.
View publication stats

Mokhtari Et Al. - 2020 - Vulnerability Assessment of Offshore Terminals in The Sultanate of Oman The Case of A Security Audit For SPM Termin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mokhtari Et Al. - 2020 - Vulnerability Assessment of Offshore Terminals in The Sultanate of Oman The Case of A Security Audit For SPM Termin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mokhtari Et Al. - 2020 - Vulnerability Assessment of Offshore Terminals in The Sultanate of Oman The Case of A Security Audit For SPM Termin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Vulnerability assessment of offshore terminals in the Sultanate of Oman: The

Article · September 2020

Mehrdad Behforouzi Arife Tugsan Isiacik Colak

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Remote Sensing of Optically Complex Waters View project

Offshore Renewable Energy View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Vulnerability assessment of offshore terminals in the Sultanate of Oman:

Corresponding author: Kambiz Mokhtari

Phase 1: Assets Characterization

Phase 5: Security Risk Factor Table (SRFT) Model

Phase 6: Security Measures

Phase 7: Security Risk Treatment

Figure 1: A generic SRM framework for PSOT

is a class of objects with a continuum of grades of membership. Such a set is characterised by a

For a trapezoidal fuzzy number of = (l, m, n, u); i.e. M = (3)

Table 1: Examples of sources of threats in PSOTs

Source: based on Sutton (2014)

, where  is a symbol of multiplication under fuzzy environments (5)

Moderate 25 - 48 Level 2 A moderate security risk is present. Review and

High 49 - 72 Level 3 Identify risk-drivers that can be reduced with

Extreme >72 Level 3 + State of high Initiate aggressive risk-reduction activity, in

Figure 5: Google map of Mina al Fahal area

Table 3: Portrayal of Port of Mina al Fahal

6 Pipelines and pumps 6 One Pilot Boat

7 Gate 7 Block for Stevedores

8 Guardroom 8 A rigid inflatable fast response craft

9 Blocks for employees 9 A rigid inflatable anti-pollution boom

12 Administrative Building 12 Administrative Building

Figure 6: Mina al Fahal Offshore Terminal in Zone B

Visibility status of ships and Not Visible Less Visible Highly

Processed gas and liquid chemicals Low Medium High

Imported crude oil and natural gas Low Medium High

Range of shipping traffic Low Medium High

Terminal’s ownership Private Public/Priva Governme

Presence of terrorist’s groups in Low Medium Large

Worst impact on-site/offshore Low Moderate Severe

Worst impact off-site/offshore Low Moderate Severe

History of security incidents in Nil Few Frequent

Meteorological conditions Good Moderate Bad

Target identification – chemical – by None Minimum Present

6. Conclusions and suggestions

View publication stats

You might also like