The Ottawa Citizen February 15, 2007
Big cities' oil sectors top targets for terror
Tories taking threats to energy facilities seriously, Day says
By Ian MacLeod
The federal government is taking seriously a terror group's call for jihadists to attack Canada's oil and natural gas facilities to starve the United States of energy, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said yesterday.
"We've always said that Canada is not immune to threats. We take this threat seriously," he told reporters outside the Commons, adding "it's possible to protect all of our assets, both human and structural."
He did not elaborate on what new measures the government might take to protect the energy facilities, most of which are owned by private industry and located in Alberta.
What is clear is that the economic, political and human costs of a successful attack could be staggering.
In terms of lives lost and damage, a strike would almost certainly have to occur in a city, notably Edmonton and Montreal, key points in Canada's massive oil and gas pipeline system, says a threat assessment of Canada's oil and gas infrastructure.
"A successful, concerted attack on Edmonton could conceivably cripple the Canadian oil and gas sector, disrupting service to millions and shocking the public's sense of security," says the assessment for the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Carleton University.
The economic damage would be devastating and could potentially derail Alberta's oilsands project by driving up production costs and scaring off investors.
And the political fallout in the U.S., which looks to Canada as a safe and reliable source of energy, could lead it to adopt a fortress mentality, which would have even more serious ramifications for the Canadian economy.
Mr. Day's comments follow a Citizen report yesterday about a Feb. 8 Internet message from a group called The al-Qaeda Organization in the Arabian Peninsula. It urges jihadists to strike western hemisphere oil and gas producers that supply the United States.
"We should strike petroleum interests in all areas which supply the United States ... like Canada. (That) would contribute to the ending of the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan," the group said, echoing fugitive al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's repeated calls for followers to target oil facilities that supply the West, especially the U.S.
Canada, which is the biggest foreign supplier of oil and gas to the U.S., topped the list of target producers, followed by Mexico and Venezuela.
Terrorism experts believe the message is intended to rally homegrown jihadists in the three countries, rather than foreshadowing a strike here by the Saudi wing of al-Qaeda.
Last year, the group claimed responsibility for a foiled attack in which suicide bombers tried to strike the world's largest oil processing facility at Abqaiq in Saudi Arabia's eastern province. Several other successful attacks against Saudi oil-related installations in recent years have been blamed on the group.
Its aim is to undermine the power of the Saudi royal family, harass western oil workers and attack the world economy by driving up oil prices, according to GlobalSecurity.org, a U.S. company that monitors and analyses military, intelligence and national security issues.
The 2006 threat assessment says the effect of a terrorist attack on oil and gas facilities would largely depend on where the attack took place.
Three major pipelines deliver crude oil, mostly from Alberta, to domestic and U.S. refineries. Another system of a high-pressure steel pipelines carries raw natural gas from wells in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan to processing plants and then on to the Canada-U.S. market.
The largest oil pipeline stretches from Edmonton to Montreal. Another travels through Regina, crosses into the U.S. from Manitoba and then back into Canada at Sarnia and on to Montreal. The third runs from Edmonton to Vancouver, with a subsidiary line leading to refineries in northwest Washington state.
"While remote areas are easy to attack and hard to defend, there would be comparatively little damage done to the infrastructure itself," the assessment says.
An attack in a city would be more difficult to execute, "but much more costly in terms of lives lost and damage to the infrastructure.
"Consequently, where a terrorist group will strike depends largely on that group's motivation, intention and resources. Assuming that most terrorist groups want to do serious damage in either real or symbolic terms, an attack on remote pieces of pipe are less likely even though they are easier to execute."
The level of service disruption, as well as damage to public confidence, also depends on the size, location and duration of an attack, writes Aaron Shull, the report's author.
"Destroying a small section of pipeline in a remote location would be likely to cause little, if any, noticeable disruption in service to most Canadians. While there would be a definite impact on public confidence, no loss of life and the modest disruption of daily affairs would mitigate against any real undermining of public confidence."
But an attack in a city or on an offshore oil rig, while more difficult to pull off, would have a larger effect on service delivery and public confidence, it says.
The economic costs would be huge, as would the political impact on Canada-U.S. relations.
Costs would include increased expenses of security, repairs, lost revenues and decreased production.
"It would frighten investors and foreshadow higher market prices for energy. An initial attack would also spark fears of future attacks, lowering confidence even further. There would be a corresponding increase in security-related spending, making both the production and distribution of Canadian energy more expensive.
"This would prove problematic in the oil and gas sector especially because Canada sits on massive unconventional reserves that are commercially viable only because of high global prices and heavy technological input. A terrorist attack could drive up costs so that this formerly economically viable recovery process becomes an unattractive option for investment."
While an attack on Canada could create a strong emotional solidarity between Canada and the U.S., it also could exacerbate political tensions by threatening U.S. security.
"The safety of Canadian energy should be viewed as an issue which encompasses, fundamentally, the safety of the U.S. supply. There is no doubt that this fact has implications for both the level of the threat currently facing Canada from al-Qaeda and for the political relations between the two countries in the event of a terrorist strike."
© Copyright 2007, The Ottawa Citizen
