Al-Qa'ida Targets Canada

[scribblet]

This should get those suffering from BDS and HDS the screaming meemies, what that 'deep integration with the U.S." and all -

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...90-b9ce5a8cab77

Call to arms. Strike oil patch to cripple U.S., web posting says

Al-Qa'ida has called for terrorist strikes against Canadian oil and natural gas facilities to "choke the U.S. economy."

An online message, posted Thursday by the Al-Qa'ida Organization in the Arabian Peninsula, declares: "We should strike petroleum interests in all areas that supply the United States ... like Canada," the No. 1 exporter of oil and gas to the U.S.

"The biggest party hurt will be the industrial nations, and on top of them, the United States."

[Topaz]

If its true I can see them doing it overseas but from what I've read is, the US and Canada is/has a pipeline going from Alberta to Houston, so it may be alittle harder to take out the supply.

[Black Dog]

Given that , these days, anyone with a computer and a shitty modem can call themselves "Al Q'aida," you'll have to excuse me if I don't piss myself over this.

"It's not the first time that it's happened, and we have no credible threat to substantiate it ... but still we are taking it seriously and we've informed all of our members and contacts about that - especially those with critical infrastructure - to pay extra attention and be vigilant."

[watching&waiting]

I would think that it would not be that hard to attack the oil pipelines in Canada. They do run in the most remote areas and the ability to cross under or over the piplines is something many hunters have done many times. It would be real easy for a person with a small C-4 pack to set it so the piplines are blown up at the remotest areas, making the ability to fight the fires and repair it that much harder. But any how that would not take much thinking of how to go about attacking it.

It is a whole lot harder to find ways that would secure this from that kind of thing from happening. In some parts of Canada there are already groups that are totally against the piplines in their areas, and so this would also give them the ability to find and nurture a home grown terrorists, into doing the job as well. I seem to remember a person in Alberta that had shot and killed kids that were terrorising his family etc. and if my memory serves me correctly he had a hate on for oil companies and he was also capable of bombing things etc.. I would wonder just how much nurchering it would take to turn him into a full wacko to do the biding of this kind.

So while I will not worry greatly about if it can happen, I am well aware that it is not that hard to find and make these things go ahead.

[Leafless]

Al-Qa'ida has called for terrorist strikes against Canadian oil and natural gas facilities to "choke the U.S. economy."

Nothing to fear say the Liberals.

The Liberals and the Block heads are going to vote to kill "draconian" anti-terrorism legislation, to prevent the Conservatives from extending anti-terrorism legislation which expires this week.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.h...3827828&k=47667

This is a typical Liberal ideology anyways, that terrorist or pertaining to all criminals, are not criminals but are simply misunderstood.

[Black Dog]

I would think that it would not be that hard to attack the oil pipelines in Canada. They do run in the most remote areas and the ability to cross under or over the piplines is something many hunters have done many times. It would be real easy for a person with a small C-4 pack to set it so the piplines are blown up at the remotest areas, making the ability to fight the fires and repair it that much harder. But any how that would not take much thinking of how to go about attacking it.

And yet the impact of such sabatoge would be temporary and, in the grand scheme of things, negligible. It also lacks a large degree psychological impact, which is really the most imporant aspect of any terrorist operation. Quite frankly, hoofing out to the middle of nowhere to blow up a stretch of pipeline that will be back up and running in a week or so anyway is not an efficient use of a terrorist's time and resources and thus, not a credible threat.

[Figleaf]

I think the outlines of la queada's plan is becoming clear. They want to scare us into bankrupting ourselves with expensive but futile security measures.

[guyser]

Somehow I dont see them as a threat between October and April. Too damn cold and snowy for those wussies.

[geoffrey]

And yet the impact of such sabatoge would be temporary and, in the grand scheme of things, negligible. It also lacks a large degree psychological impact, which is really the most imporant aspect of any terrorist operation. Quite frankly, hoofing out to the middle of nowhere to blow up a stretch of pipeline that will be back up and running in a week or so anyway is not an efficient use of a terrorist's time and resources and thus, not a credible threat.

You obviously know quite little about the Canadian oil industry.

A week is not a short amount of time. The EnCana pipeline for example transports around 150,000bbl/day to the US Mid-West. Just one pipeline.

That's an incredible $10 million per day in loss. Just in one pipeline.

Let's look further. An attack on any of the Oil Sands plants (with results similar to the Suncor fire) could result in up to 60,000bbl/day of loss... and this would take upwards of a year to repair. So we're looking at a loss of pretty near a billion dollars.

Let's take one of the worst case scenarios, not in industry dollar loss, but in human life. An attack on a sour gas well near a centre. Tens of thousands could die quite quickly.

Really, I want to know what Ottawa is doing specifically for our high risk industry in Alberta to protect us from external threats. I really would expect many millions to be spent on security inititives, that is Ottawa's job after all, to keep us safe.

So let's see it Harper, let's protect Canada's economic engine.

[Black Dog]

You obviously know quite little about the Canadian oil industry.

A week is not a short amount of time. The EnCana pipeline for example transports around 150,000bbl/day to the US Mid-West. Just one pipeline.

That's an incredible $10 million per day in loss. Just in one pipeline.

Let's look further. An attack on any of the Oil Sands plants (with results similar to the Suncor fire) could result in up to 60,000bbl/day of loss... and this would take upwards of a year to repair. So we're looking at a loss of pretty near a billion dollars.

Meh. Really, $10 million a day is a lot of dosh, but "crippling?" Nope. You'd have to see some pretty well-co-ordinated and widespread attacks to get tho the point where we'r ein serious danger. As for the rest, it would have to be a preety severe, well planned and well executed attack, at least as complex as 9/11. I simply question whether any "sleeper cells" in Canada (the existence of which there is precious little evidence of) would have the wherewithal to pull a job like that off. Like I said, the idea of attacking the oil sands offers little in the way of bang for the terrorist buck. Certainly doesn't fit the usual M.O.

Let's take one of the worst case scenarios, not in industry dollar loss, but in human life. An attack on a sour gas well near a centre. Tens of thousands could die quite quickly.

As far as this goes, I'm more worried about industrial accidents leading to this than terrorism.

Really, I want to know what Ottawa is doing specifically for our high risk industry in Alberta to protect us from external threats. I really would expect many millions to be spent on security inititives, that is Ottawa's job after all, to keep us safe.

So let's see it Harper, let's protect Canada's economic engine.

What do you want to see? Soldiers? With guns? On our streets?

[geoffrey]

Like I said, the idea of attacking the oil sands offers little in the way of bang for the terrorist buck. Certainly doesn't fit the usual M.O.

60,000bbl/day is a sizeable chunk. And that's just attacking one in-situ plant. I also don't think it would require the sophisication of a 9-11 attack. It's a very real threat.

So let's see it Harper, let's protect Canada's economic engine.

What do you want to see? Soldiers? With guns? On our streets?

I don't know of many oil/gas operations inside a city (perhaps Edmonton or Sarnia, but that's on the outskirts). Protecting remote sites is an issue though, one that I think the oil companies as well need to do a better job of.

In Kananaskis for example, you can easily walk right up to many sour gas wells. No problem. These wells don't produce a whole lot in the big picture, but the ecological disaster would be huge if there were ever an attack related blowout.

This threat relates more to US capacity though, so a pipeline situation is the most likely.

[Black Dog]

60,000bbl/day is a sizeable chunk. And that's just attacking one in-situ plant. I also don't think it would require the sophisication of a 9-11 attack. It's a very real threat.

Well, then maybe industry should get its shit together. Really, though: I reckon the probability of a terrorist attack is exceedingly low. Certainly lower than some other incidents.

This threat relates more to US capacity though, so a pipeline situation is the most likely.

Again, that's why the threat isn't particularily credible. First, the objective of terrorism is to sow fear and terror. Causing a temporary (though expensive) drop in the oil supply is not particularily terrifying (except to oil executives). Why hike out into the middle of the bush to blow a hole in a pipeline that will just be fixed anyway when you could detonate the same bomb on a C-Train with much greater and terrifying effect?

[geoffrey]

Again, that's why the threat isn't particularily credible. First, the objective of terrorism is to sow fear and terror. Causing a temporary (though expensive) drop in the oil supply is not particularily terrifying (except to oil executives). Why hike out into the middle of the bush to blow a hole in a pipeline that will just be fixed anyway when you could detonate the same bomb on a C-Train with much greater and terrifying effect?

Attacking the WTC 3 hours later in the day would have provided much more massive casualties and far more terror... I don't think the rationale of terrorists is something that you or I can fully grasp at times.

[Black Dog]

Attacking the WTC 3 hours later in the day would have provided much more massive casualties and far more terror... I don't think the rationale of terrorists is something that you or I can fully grasp at times.

The fact remains, the rationale behind those attacks was to inflict a large number of casualties in a spectacular fashion (ditto the London, Madrid and Bali bombings), not to damage infrastructure or cause economic problems.

[geoffrey]

The fact remains, the rationale behind those attacks was to inflict a large number of casualties in a spectacular fashion (ditto the London, Madrid and Bali bombings), not to damage infrastructure or cause economic problems.

I don't know. The WTC attacks caused far more infrastructure and economic problems than human toll. If that was their primary motive, they would have attacked later in the day.

[Black Dog]

I don't know. The WTC attacks caused far more infrastructure and economic problems than human toll. If that was their primary motive, they would have attacked later in the day.

I think the difference betwen killing 3,000 and killing 5,000 or more is not that important. It's not the quantity of the deaths that matter, but the fact of them and the effect (affect? shit.) that the attacks had on the psyche of the nation. Terrorism is a form of psychological warfare, the material consequenses are the icing on the cake.

[guyser]

Really, I want to know what Ottawa is doing specifically for our high risk industry in Alberta to protect us from external threats. I really would expect many millions to be spent on security inititives, that is Ottawa's job after all, to keep us safe.

Would Alberta be willing to pay a little extra from the oil profits to protect that high risk industry? And if they don't, can anyone say hey now, you wanted extra security , how is it to be paid?

IMO, I see real problems for terrorists in damaging the oil productions fields of this country. One they are in the middle of nowhere (sort of) and any outsider is noticed, even if he is from that disgusting burb Toronto. Two, how could/would they transport the explosives needed to do damage. Three, just what sort of world exposure and impact would this achieve? It might be naive, but BBC going on air telling viewers that "this just in, Leduc has had a bomb go off at the oil plant" just does not have the same cache.

And lastly, I dont think polynewbie can get enough people to secretly congegrate and plan all the attacks without tipping off the New World Order and their bosses the Bank of The World. But in the next meeting, I have heard that poly will ask the Rockefellers et al..." how can we pull this off and blame Muslims?"

[geoffrey]

Would Alberta be willing to pay a little extra from the oil profits to protect that high risk industry? And if they don't, can anyone say hey now, you wanted extra security , how is it to be paid?

Why should we pay more? We already pay more per capita than anyone else. Protecting Canada from foreign attack is soley the responsibility of the Federal government, and protecting the oil sands and Alberta oil industry (remember BC, Newfoundland and Sask also have oil, they need protection too) is in the interest of all Canadians.

[geoffrey]

I don't know. The WTC attacks caused far more infrastructure and economic problems than human toll. If that was their primary motive, they would have attacked later in the day.

I think the difference betwen killing 3,000 and killing 5,000 or more is not that important. It's not the quantity of the deaths that matter, but the fact of them and the effect (affect? shit.) that the attacks had on the psyche of the nation. Terrorism is a form of psychological warfare, the material consequenses are the icing on the cake.

I'll agree, but we do have to understand that an attack on US oil supply is more than just material. The US is panicky (word?) about it's supply already. An attack on that would have serious implications for market stability in the US. Investors would question whether long term supply is secure. Investors in Canadian oil projects would question whether our government takes terrorism seriously enough.

[Black Dog]

I'll agree, but we do have to understand that an attack on US oil supply is more than just material. The US is panicky (word?) about it's supply already. An attack on that would have serious implications for market stability in the US. Investors would question whether long term supply is secure. Investors in Canadian oil projects would question whether our government takes terrorism seriously enough.

The U.S. has strategic reserves and other suppliers that would pick up the slack from any short term disruption. Also: if I'm not mistaken, the U.S. gets a good chunk of its oil (15% IIRC) from Al Q'adea's own backyard in Saudi Arabia: surely that should also make investors twitchy. But the staggering amount of money to be made is a balm to many jitters (and just wait till it hits $100 a barrel when the U.S. starts battering Tehran: oil executives will be dropping dead from blood loss due to permanant priapism.)

Another thing: most of the attacks that can be traced to or inspired by AQ were performed by simpletons. Complex economic calculations are not their hallmark.

[guyser]

Why should we pay more? We already pay more per capita than anyone else. Protecting Canada from foreign attack is soley the responsibility of the Federal government, and protecting the oil sands and Alberta oil industry (remember BC, Newfoundland and Sask also have oil, they need protection too) is in the interest of all Canadians.

You are right in that it is in our best interests. But the fact remains that security to the oil fields , be it in Alta Nfld or Sask is the responsibility of the oil processors themselves.

The feds take care of the borders and the airports, and investigate security concerns throughout our country.

Litton Systems, a major supplier to NASA and I think part of the Canadarm, provides immense security on their own dime. The oil people should do so too. Now, if an imminent attack were known or planned, then yes the feds will be involved.But not because it is oil.