I. INTRODUCTION
II. THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF
TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST ENERGY
INFRASTRUCTURE
A. The Past and Present
1. Colombia's Fight to Save a Pipeline
2. Creative Energy Terrorism in Chechnya
3. The War ... on Energy Infrastructure ... in
Iraq
B. The Future ... It's Shocking
1. The Oil Shockwave
2. The NATO Forum on Energy Security
Technology
III. THE NEED FOR ENERGY SECURITY POLICY
A. United States Energy Security Should Not Stop at
the Coastline: Congress Should Model Federal
Energy Security Legislation After The Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002
1. Layers of Security Plans
2. Regulating Security
3. Federal Energy Security Guards
B. The International Need for Effective Energy
Security: The United Nations' Next Big Initiative?
1. Resolution 1373 and the Counter-Terrorism
Committee
2. The IAEA and International Nuclear Energy
Security
3. The IMO and International Maritime Security
4. NATO Initiative in International Energy
Security
IV. CONCLUSION
I. INTRODUCTION
There is little debate that since the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, and the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorism
has been a significant topic of U.S. legislation. (1) Moreover, the
local gas station marquee demonstrates the impact catastrophic events
affecting energy facilities have on the American pocketbook. (2)
Legislators and experts recognize, however, that natural disasters are
not the sole cause of the spike in energy prices. (3) The importance of
securing energy assets from terrorism is gaining both domestic and
international recognition. (4) Legislators and experts have recently
gone before the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and
Nonproliferation to discuss the topic of energy security. (5) The
international community is also turning its focus to the security of
energy infrastructure. (6)
The purpose of this Comment is to suggest the need for specific
domestic and international legislation that would ensure the security of
energy infrastructure. This issue has particular relevance given the
lack of clearly unified energy security legislation in the United States
and the conspicuous silence of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 regarding
the security of non-nuclear energy infrastructure. (7) The topic of
energy security has further significance internationally because energy
assets worldwide have been terrorist targets in the past and there is
indication they will continue to be in the future. (8) Furthermore, the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is becoming increasingly
interested in the issue of energy security, (9) which may help pave the
way for United Nations energy security guidelines.
The first section of this Comment is a historical analysis of
terrorist attacks on international energy assets and the measures
nations have taken in response. This Comment will not address issues
regarding the jurisdictional authority of nations to protect their
energy assets abroad, though it will discuss the lengths to which some
nations have gone to do so. Additionally, this Part will include a
survey of the evidence indicating the intention of terrorist
organizations to continue to target energy assets worldwide. This Part
will also highlight a recent study called Oil Shockwave. This study
primarily called attention to U.S. dependence on oil by playing out
fictionalized scenarios such as terrorist attacks on energy facilities.
(10)
The primary analysis of this Comment focuses on the need for clear
domestic and international energy security legislation. This Comment
discusses the U.S. enactment of the Maritime Transportation Security Act
of 2002 (MTSA) and determines that it could serve as model legislation
for federal energy infrastructure security policy. Moreover, this
Comment suggests the need for United Nations involvement in the
development of international energy asset security guidelines. This
Comment focuses on the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA)
efforts in securing nuclear energy sources and the International
Maritime Organization's (IMO) role in developing an international
framework for maritime security. Finally, this Comment discusses
NATO's current focus on energy security (11) and suggests that the
United Nations needs to take more initiative in this arena.
II. THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST
ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
A. The Past and Present
History suggests that energy infrastructure is a preferred target
for terrorist organizations worldwide. (12) The insurgency in Iraq is
strong evidence of this argument, (13) but energy terrorism has not been
isolated to the Middle East. (14) Moreover, national responses to these
attacks have been varied. (15)
1. Colombia's Fight to Save a Pipeline
Colombia is a leading example of a nation plagued by terrorist
destruction of energy assets. Occidental Petroleum discovered oil in
Colombia in the early 1980s and began the Cano Limon oilfield. (16) The
two major Colombian terrorist organizations, the National Liberation
Army (ELN) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), have
targeted Occidental's pipelines extending from the Cano Limon
Oilfield since its inception. (17) The terrorist groups treated bombing
the pipeline as a fundraising activity, allowing them to extort money
from Occidental and its subcontractors. (18) In the late 1990s, the
attacks on the pipeline greatly increased, and between February and May
2001, Occidental pumped oil for a total of only thirty hours. (19) The
attacks on the Cano Limon pipeline became so numerous it earned the
moniker of "the flute." (20)
Occidental leadership grew weary of the constant pipeline repairs,
and in May 2001, threatened to shut down operations entirely. (21) The
Colombian government quickly responded to Occidental's
announcement. (22) On the same day as Occidental's meeting with
Colombian officials, Colombia's head of paramilitary forces
reported they would meet the terrorists head on. (23) Though the
Colombian ambassador to Washington denied any connection between
Occidental's announcement and the paramilitary leader's
declaration, the Colombian government also dispatched troops to the
embattled region. (24) Additionally, the Colombian government
commissioned a team of special prosecutors in its crackdown on the
terrorist groups. (25) Occidental helped to fund this team, adding to
the dollars it was already paying for the Colombian military's
efforts in security. (26)
Later that same year, on September 11th, the United States was
attacked by terrorists. (27) This event sparked the United States to
rethink its aid policies towards Colombia, which had largely been
directed at the drug trade. (28) The U.S. administration drew up a plan,
with a $98 million budget request for Congress, to deploy U.S. Special
Forces soldiers to Colombia to train local military in pipeline security
operations. (29)
The success of the joint Colombia-U.S. initiative against the
terrorist groups is debatable, but in December 2001, Occidental reported
only one attack on its pipeline. (30) Furthermore, studies show that
attacks against oil assets in Colombia declined by fourteen percent
since the inception of the Colombian energy infrastructure security
plan. (31) Additionally, Colombia's state oil company expects
production to rise from 292,000 to 400,000 barrels per day by 2010. (32)
2. Creative Energy Terrorism in Chechnya
Russia is the world's second largest exporter of oil. Its
energy infrastructure has also been the target of terrorism. (33)
Chechen terrorists have targeted pipelines in Dagestan, Moscow, and
other regions in Russia. (34) The Chechen separatists have been creative
with their energy terrorism; they have not been content to merely
destroy energy infrastructures. (35) The Russian Interior Ministry has
reported that "criminal gangs" pilfer and sell approximately
one third of the oil produced in Chechnya to fund future terrorist
activities. (36) Russian authorities have responded by closing down
illegal refineries and detaining illegal holding tanks. (37)
3. The War ... on Energy Infrastructure ... in Iraq
The insurgency currently underway in Iraq is perhaps the starkest
example of the desire of terrorist groups to target energy
infrastructure. (38) Nearly 300 attacks on pipelines have occurred in
Iraq since the end of major combat operations. (39) These attacks
occurred all over the country, (40) from the major export artery
originating in the northern city of Kirkuk, leading to the Ceyhan
terminal in Turkey, (41) to the major oil installations of Basra, which
account for more than two-thirds of Iraq's oil production. (42)
These attacks have resulted in an estimated $10 billion loss of oil
revenues in Iraq, not to mention the heavy toll they have taken on the
national rebuilding effort. (43)
The terrorist attacks on energy assets in Iraq have not been
isolated to oil pipelines. (44) Terrorists have bombed pumping stations,
launched mortar rounds at natural gas tanks, fired rockets into
refineries, and navigated bomb-laden boats into the vital Basra
terminal. (45) Electricity plants in Iraq have also been targets of
terrorist mortar attacks. (46) Furthermore, numerous members of the
energy industry have been killed assisting in the rebuilding effort.
(47)
The U.S. administration responded to these attacks. One mission of
the U.S. soldiers deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom has
been to protect Iraq's oil infrastructure. (48) This military
mission included infantry soldiers guarding pipelines, (49) the Army
Corps of Engineers working on damaged pipelines, (50) and the U.S. Navy
maintaining a presence in the Basra port facility. (51)
United States forces are not acting alone in protecting Iraqi
pipelines. The Iraqi government has deployed local security guards to
protect pipelines, (52) many of whom have lost their lives. (53)
Moreover, the Iraqi Oil Ministry has recently been developing new
pipeline security measures, fencing off 435 miles of the Kirkuk pipeline
and deploying 1,500 Iraqi troops along its vast expanse. (54)
B. The Future ... It's Shocking
There are many other instances of terrorist groups targeting energy
assets around the world. (55) The specific examples mentioned
demonstrate the willingness and ability of terrorists to target energy
assets, and their threats of future attacks suggest they will continue.
Shortly after the attacks of September 11th, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) warned energy companies of Osama bin Laden's
approval of targeting natural gas pipelines and facilities in North
America if he were detained or killed. (56) This statement was not made
offhandedly. Al-Qaeda's leader is well aware of the impact that
targeting energy assets can have on the United States and the world.
(57) Other terrorists have followed bin Laden's lead and recognized
oil as "the provision line and the feeding artery of the life of
the crusader nation." (58) With this in mind, terrorist websites
have called on "our brothers in the battlefields to direct some of
their great efforts towards the oil wells and pipelines...." (59)
These threats clearly caught the attention of experts and legislators
worldwide. (60)
1. The Oil Shockwave
Experts in the private sector and some legislators have been
attempting to raise awareness of the importance of energy security. (61)
These experts and legislators recognize the destructive power terrorist
organizations can have by targeting energy assets and are heeding the
threats of future attacks. (62)
In response to terrorist attacks and the continuing threats on
energy infrastructure--specifically oil assets--the organization
Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), (63) in conjunction with
the National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP), (64) conducted a
simulation exercise entitled Oil Shockwave in June 2005. (65) This
exercise involved former top government officials including two former
Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a former member of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a former Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (66) The participants acted as
advisors to the President in response to a series of hypothetical
situations that would potentially reduce worldwide oil production. (67)
The Oil Shockwave scenarios were as follows: 1) in December 2005,
violence and unrest in Nigeria caused 600,000 barrels of oil per day to
be taken off the market and a severe winter in the northern hemisphere
increased demand to 700,000 barrels per day, 2) in January 2006,
coordinated terrorist attacks on oil infrastructure in both the United
States and Saudi Arabia drive the oil shortage to 3.4 million barrels
per day, and 3) in June 2006, a terror campaign targeting foreign
nationals in Saudi Arabia is commenced. (68)
The group predicted the price of oil to skyrocket to over $160 per
barrel causing the price of gasoline to rise to $5.74 per gallon in
scenario number three. (69) The group then analyzed the economic effects
of oil prices reaching $120 per barrel within the context of the
fictionalized circumstances. (70) Some of the more notable impacts were
an estimated two million jobs lost in 2007 and a $2,680 increase in
annual gasoline costs to the average American household. (71) Dr. Robert
Gates, the former head of the CIA and the former president of Texas
A&M University, (72) participated in Oil Shockwave and stated,
"IT]he scenarios portrayed were absolutely not alarmist;
they're realistic." (73)
2. The NATO Forum on Energy Secu