The risk of a terrorist attack on most stretches of crude oil and natural gas pipelines in the United States is “relatively low,” according to an energy security report that was released Monday and forwarded to the White House Office of Homeland Security.

“Large amounts of these pipelines are underground, making them less vulnerable to attack. Most pipelines are also relatively easy to repair over the short term. In many cases, alternative routes are also available to move sufficient amounts of product around the site of a terrorist attack so as to prevent major disruption,” said security experts Robert Housman and Dee Martin at the Houston law firm of Bracewell and Patterson LLP, which represents a number of energy companies.

Given these factors, security efforts should focus on “high-risk pipelines” — those built above-ground — and “high-risk components” such as compressors and pumping stations, the report recommended.

Perhaps the most vulnerable of all U.S. pipelines is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which transports 20% of the nation’s crude oil production and supplies 45% of California’s crude oil needs, it said. Roughly half of the line, about 400 miles, is located above-ground and in unpopulated areas. Steps already have been taken by Alyeska, the pipeline’s owner, the U.S. military and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to protect the pipeline and respond to an attack, the report said.

The Bracewell and Patterson security experts emphasized that pipelines and other energy companies will need “substantial help from the federal government” in order to “adequately confront” future terrorist threats. “No one can reasonably expect any one company or set of companies to be able to secure a major U.S. port or guard a nuclear facility from an air assault,” they said.

The report singled out the four natural gas pipelines that serve California — PacificGas Transmission Northwest, Kern River, El Paso and Transwestern — as being “highly difficult” to defend from an attack, given the “vast distances” that the lines cross. “The impact of taking any one of these pipelines offline would be significant.” The four lines supply 5.7 Bcf of gas to the state each day.

Moreover, “if terrorists launched a coordinated series of pipeline attacks” — a capability that they possess — “the effect could be to cripple America’s energy distribution infrastructure,” the report noted.

The law firm’s security experts said the liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments that were entering Boston Harbor were a “vulnerable target” pre-Sept. 11, despite all of the safety precautions that were being taken by the tanker industry, U.S. Coast Guard and others at the time. “Even these measures [were] inadequate to protect against a determined terrorist. A number of vulnerabilities [remained], including attacks by [a] rocket-propelled grenade, Stinger missile, suicide boat, plane, planted bomb or even high-caliber weapons fire. Recognizing these risks, following the Sept. 11 attacks,” the Coast Guard in Boston temporarily banned LNG shipments through the harbor until a security plan was devised. The ban was lifted in mid-October .

A terrorist attack on a domestic oil or natural gas rigs would pose a “potential for serious harm,” but the odds of major damage occurring would be “much less significant” than Iraq’s destruction of the Kuwaiti oil fields during the Persian Gulf War, the security experts noted. “While the United States has large numbers of oil exploration facilities, these facilities produce substantially less oil than do their Kuwaiti counterparts. Moreover, …the Iraqi forces destroyed almost the entire energy infrastructure of Kuwait — a feat no terrorist could pull off in the United States.”

©Copyright 2001 Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news report may not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in any form, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.