100kg of jet fuel addictive stolen from Jurong Island
-
its juz normal sensationalised news from new paper.
6 sir and cisco guys are positioned to thwart any attempted terrorist misdeeds towards jurong island n its personnel, u know the usual car bombs, suicide bombers, not some commercial plundering so its unfair dat dey get the flak for the theft of the fuel additive.
i'm sure these fuel additives come in non descript containers. even if they had the words 'fuel additive' in bold, it wud not attract any security personnel's suspicions because industrial cargo like these wud be in the back of hundreds of cargo vehicles that come in n out of jurong island, not to mention, plying across jurong island. so i guess the onus falls on the firm's security guard who are to ensure who comes in n out of their premises and what they are carrying.
i'm very sure 6 sir wud not get any blame for this. if a car bomb exploded in jurong island, then yes, 6 sir is at fault. but this...ish don think so~
what if thieves made out with a large loot of liquor changi airport's dfs? blame 6 sir again? i can imagine the headlines now
-
and it goes thru right under every1 noses without knowingOriginally posted by fudgester:Let's assume that one barrel contains about 60 litres of fuel. That's a very reasonable estimate, considering that one smaller jerrycan can hold 25 litres of water. 100kg of fuel has a volume of slightly more than 100 litres (say, 110 litres).
So all it takes is two nondescript barrels stored in the back of an unremarkable pickup truck (for example). I don't suppose anyone is going to view two barrels in the back of a vehicle coming out of Jurong Island with more than a passing glance.
-
will ppl who have just gotten 6sir inside b affected.
-
yes..the newspaper had over-sensationalise the news by saying close to a 100 litres etc etc. the impression it gives people is like waaa... such a huge amount can slip past the careful watch of so many soldiers and policeman???Originally posted by fudgester:Let's assume that one barrel contains about 60 litres of fuel. That's a very reasonable estimate, considering that one smaller jerrycan can hold 25 litres of water. 100kg of fuel has a volume of slightly more than 100 litres (say, 110 litres).
So all it takes is two nondescript barrels stored in the back of an unremarkable pickup truck (for example). I don't suppose anyone is going to view two barrels in the back of a vehicle coming out of Jurong Island with more than a passing glance.
But on closer inspection, it's about 4-5 jerry cans only. -
from the New Paper. note the 2 points under the title.
(pls do not quote entire article in reply)
100kg of jet fuel additive STOLEN
Theft took place despite...
[*] Armed guards
[*] Anti-vehicle barriers
By Andre Yeo and Crystal Chan, 30 December 2006
HOW did this happen?
That is the question on the minds of security experts after the theft of a jet fuel additive on the heavily-guarded Jurong Island.
Thieves had made off with 100kg of Stadis 450, a jet fuel additive. Jurong Island is home to 88 leading petrochemical companies like DuPont and Shell.
The New Paper understands the additive was left in six sealed pails which later went missing. The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported the additive as belonging to OilTanking Singapore.
The company couldn't be contacted at press time.
The pails had been left in an open storage area on 29 Nov and were discovered missing by workers of the company on 4 Dec.
The stolen fuel additive is worth $6,800, said a Singapore police spokesman in a statement issued last night.
Police received a report on 6 Dec.
Police investigations into the theft are in progress.
Stadis 450 is added to jet fuel to enhance electrical conductivity. It is classified as a flammable liquid and hazardous material.
The incident was serious enough for Singapore authorities to alert a bomb data centre in the Philippines, reported the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Since the 11 Sep terrorist attacks in the US, security on Jurong Island has been stepped up and it has also been gazetted a Protected Area. Armed soldiers and police officers are involved in its security.
In November 2003, the chemical hub opened a new security checkpoint featuring x-ray scanners to detect explosives and weapons, as well as three-tier vehicle barriers to bar intrusions.
Visitors must also exchange their identity cards for a pass and all incoming vehicles are searched before being allowed entry.
The Singapore Armed Forces works closely with the Police Coast Guard, JTC Corporation and the resident commercial companies to protect Jurong Island.
Given these layers of security, the fuel theft was perplexing to ex-cop and private investigator Lionel De Souza.
He asked: 'Is it a chink in the security or possible collaboration on the part of some dishonest worker on the island?'
Mr Joe Moreira, a security and explosives consultant, told The New Paper that whoever stole the additive probably did it for the money.
But he doubts the fuel additive will be a threat.
He said: 'Jet fuel burns very quickly in the air and you can't sustain it for long. You need diesel to sustain the fire. So, you'll be wasting jet fuel on a bomb.'
But he felt the incident raised security questions. Said Mr Moreira: 'How can someone can go in past all the access controls, and come out with stolen goods?'
But who would buy jet fuel additive from unauthorised sources?
A source in the aviation industry said that if a syndicate is involved, it would have ready buyers.
Said the source: 'Those who own private jets are potential customers, especially when jet fuel prices have risen recently.
'Big airlines wouldn't buy from the black market. They don't want to ruin their reputations by getting involved in shady deals.'
The source said jet fuel additives can be used in any machine running on jet engines, such as jet skis and jetboats.
When contacted, a JTC Corporation spokesman would only say: 'We understand that a police report has been filed and the police are investigating the matter.' -
Ops bacinet sucks anyway...
-
since wen they measure fuel by kg?
-
How do you think aircraft fuel is measured ? By litres ?Originally posted by skeujin:since wen they measure fuel by kg? -
Originally posted by Gordonator:
So what if there're armed guards? Armed guards=prevention of theft? Definitely not...
100kg of jet fuel additive STOLEN
Theft took place despite...
[*] Armed guards
[*] Anti-vehicle barriers -
actually no one will suspect it cos if u look at it, on any normal day a vehicle carrying containers out of the island don't looks suspicious at all right?Originally posted by martin_lim85:and it goes thru right under every1 noses without knowing -
It is easier to steal from an Army Camp with you aroundOriginally posted by STUU:lol... why must steal from army camp? cannot steal from public place ijjit? lol
-
They measure by gallons.Originally posted by KoolKool:How do you think aircraft fuel is measured ? By litres ?
aiya, 100kg of jet fuel wont fly you far 1 lah. -
Anyway, if they wanna bring out, don't need to bring out by itself what. During the daily shipment of tt stuff out, i just simply add 2 more barrels to the load then drive out, also nothing wrong what. Not like the 6SIR, Police or Cisco chaps go count how much i carrying out.
-
I thought Aeroplane measure fuel by Kg one? beacuse they cannot use gallons because of expansion/contraction?Originally posted by Darkness_hacker99:They measure by gallons.
aiya, 100kg of jet fuel wont fly you far 1 lah.
Anyway, how they know 100kg stolen. What is 100kg compared to an entire island's output.
Must be thier weighing machine not calibrated. haha. -
Jurong island is a major petrochemical industrial complex,that means truckloads and truckloads of flammable,explosive, toxic,corrosive etc stuff go in and out everyday. My question is how are the security personnel going to differentiate which of these is part of a routine delivery and which ones are to be used to blow something up?
-
Suspect the writer is no fan of the armed forces.
But sometimes when reading the newspapers, it can be quite hilarious/disappointing how little the media reporting has little knowldge / understanding of the military. -
I agree with you. Just like our newspaper always refer NSF as NS Men.Originally posted by insouciant:Suspect the writer is no fan of the armed forces.
But sometimes when reading the newspapers, it can be quite hilarious/disappointing how little the media reporting has little knowldge / understanding of the military.
Then they will say officers from the Army are deployed to the scene to investigate (in case of relic ordnance). But the group usually have a couple officers but lots more WOSEs. -
luckily i ORDed from 6SIR 6mths ago.. lol.
anyway as far as i remember, POI only guard the main control centre, couple of their watch towers guarding the sea, couple of those shelters looking after the road and sea and vehicle patrols and not in charge of any companies' security. further more if its an inside job, how would anyone judge if they are working or stealing since almost the whole island is doing the same job? besides, the place where the oil are stolen might not be within looking distance of the SAF patrols.
maybe the newspaper reporters shld try doing the OPS bacinet a day or two to realise their points. -
Anyway, I think the most likely suspect would be employees on that island. After all the police and SAF are there to protect the place from terrorist attacks through providing a visible deterrent, access restriction and to provide an elevated level of firepower.
Employees will be able to bypass these measures as they have a right to be there and they know the place. -
It has perplexed Lionel De Souza a private investigator and ex-cop?
I suppose he is not a terribly bright person is he? -
true. i wonder how could they make this silly mistake since i believe most male reporters would have gone through army and knows all the lingo.Originally posted by Ponders:I agree with you. Just like our newspaper always refer NSF as NS Men. -
i wonder why the media like to find this de souza guy for comments. it seems that the media believes whatever he said.
anyway, so what if the personnels on duty saw the thieve?
if act according to ROE, its not wrong to shoot that bugger shld he be driving and not stopping. but shoot and get a big explosion? whose fault is it going to be then?
this is just dumb lah.
this de souza guy was in national service so many yrs ago. so wat if he is an ex cop? he doesnt really know the system and POI anyway. -
This De Souza guy is always adding his two cents worth, even when not needed. Sounds like a suckup to me.
-
i rather pay 68cents for my newpaper to have his 2cents removed.
-
Aside from the issue of causing an explosion, I am very sure the ROE and the Law will not allow the soldier to open fire to kill theifs.Originally posted by tfcheng:i wonder why the media like to find this de souza guy for comments. it seems that the media believes whatever he said.
anyway, so what if the personnels on duty saw the thieve?
if act according to ROE, its not wrong to shoot that bugger shld he be driving and not stopping. but shoot and get a big explosion? whose fault is it going to be then?
this is just dumb lah.
this de souza guy was in national service so many yrs ago. so wat if he is an ex cop? he doesnt really know the system and POI anyway.
IMO, the De Souza Guy should probably change his CV to read "Rent-a-Quote".