Assuming it is ever built, would the Keystone oil pipeline become an instant terrorist target? Seems like it would have to cross plenty of rivers and streams. Would a leak into a large river cause major environmental problems?
There are already oil pipelines in the US. I don’t know of any reason why the keystone pipeline would be more of a tempting target then pre-existing ones.
Plus, as a general rule despite various theories and worries that terrorists might go after industrial targets in general and ones that would cause a lot of pollution specifically, actual terrorists don’t seem very interested in such things.
I guess eco-terrorists might try something before the pipeline is finished, but such attacks in the US usually amount to wrecking a few cement mixers or burning down some utility sheds: not exactly a big deal.
There already is a TransCanada pipeline that transports the tar gunk from Alberta to Kansas/Illinois to a specialty refinery geared for that stuff.
An eco-terrorist may as well sabotage that one instead of waiting for the extension. If they do they should pop it in Canada where the source is.
It won’t be a target if it’s guarded by Kops.
Sure, it could be. It’s sad that nowadays with any project like this one of the first things people come up with is the image of a van full of terrorists. I’ve been at and read several complaints to PUCs protesting building coal power plants, where normally reasonable people claim to be “terrified” that someone will hijack an airplane and fly it into a coal pile, somehow causing an “explosion bigger than Hiroshima!!!”* And they’re filing these complaints under oath, too.
There are much choicer terrorist targets in the energy sector. I’ve been to a few of them. And this stuff isn’t new - I believe it was G. Gordon Liddy who wrote an actually decent piece on the relative insecurity of some conventional energy pinch-points in the US. Since he wrote his piece some have been addressed and removed from being “critical” - others we are way behind on.
A pipeline attack could create a small to modest-sized spill before the leak sensors would signal for a shutdown. It would not be a disaster of national proportions unless the media chose to make it such.
- Yes it’s true, there is enough energy in a decent-sized coal stockout pile to far exceed the energy released at Hiroshima:
60 day supply * 200 ton/hr burn rate * 24 hr = 288,000 ton
11,000 Btu/lbm * 288,000 ton * 2000 lbm/ton = 6.3e+12 Btu
1 Btu = 1,055 Joules, so 6.3e+12 Btu = 6.7e+15 Joules
Hiroshima explosion was 54e+12 Joules
Thus, the coal pile has 124 times the energy of the Hiroshima explosion.
But that’s a stupid-assed issue - one may as well claim a forest is dangerous because x number of trees if burned have enough energy to match a nuclear warhead. Burning is not exploding, as any non-ignoramus knows.
Indeed, there already is a Keystone Pipeline. The proposal would shorten the overall length, so, if anything, it would be less of a target.
Perhaps a better question is, is the USA energy grid (electrical, petrochemical, coal, etc.) a potential terrorist target? Yes, and it has been for a long time. Actually the power grid threat is currently in the news where NSA says Anonymous may soon have the capability, but the group says the grid is not a target. However, there is information Anonymous wants to disrupt the 13 root DNS servers worldwide.
Would’nt infrastructure targets like the energy grids be targets for nation states rather than terrorists (unless the US now conflates the two)? Surely blowing up a nightclub is easier and with more consequences then a pipeline.
You do realize that many pipelines across America have unguarded pumping stations? Blowing up a nightclub and killing/injuring 100 people (or more) is tragic, and local. Destroying a pumping station may have a local environmental impact but the actual consequences might impact tens of thousands of people for a considerable period of time. Add in the economic fallout out and the actual impact is even bigger. Besides, a destroyed nightclub is nothing. Blow up a pumping station and suddenly hundreds, if not thousands, of pumping stations and storage locations have to be immediately secured. Where are are you going to get the money and manpower to do that, short of military intervention across the land?
Except expereinces elsewhere have shown that the actual effects of attacks are negligibleas far as the big picture is concerned. Attacking pipelines is attractive until you actually do it. They are usually quickly repaired (in hours or days) and disruptions are limited. Its not a tactic which accomplished much.
Attacking a pipeline isn’t “terrorism” in that it doesn’t really terrorize anybody.
Sure it is an effective tactic in warfare, but blowing up a shopping mall would do far more to terrorize a population than blowing up a pipeline.
Whatever happened to the good ol’ word “saboteur”? OK, it’s french, but it avoids imputing a motive.
Damaging pipelines was in vogue for a while in Iraq, because the mean time to repair was greater than the mean time between attacks. Similarly, the cost of repair was much greater than the cost to do the damage. Asymmetric warfare at its best, but not terrorism as I understand the word. Increased (read “costly”) security helped, but I think the Sunni turnaround did the trick.
There are innumerable vulnerabilities in our incredibly complex society/economy. Anybody with a grudge can cause a lot of harm. BTW, why isn’t the word “terrorist” used when someone shoots a lot of people?
When the purpose is to spread fear to effect a political change, it is. When the purpose is otherwise, it’s because the use of the word would be wrong.
Yes, it will be a target. Just like an infinite number of other refineries and infrastructures are already a target for terrorists.
The Keystone Cops will protect it.
What makes you think it would be exposed for stream/river crossings?