HOMELAND SECURITY
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2005
infrastructure
HOW SAFE IS
CANADA’S ENERGY
INFRASTRUCTURE?
SINCE SEPT. 11, 2001, CANADA HAS TAKEN NUMEROUS STEPS TO
BOLSTER ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY. BUT HAS ENOUGH BEEN DONE?
www.mcgraw-hillhomelandsecurity.com
By Levon Sevunts
Christian
Latreille couldn’t believe his eyes as he entered one of the world’s largest
hydroelectric stations, the LG-2, a sprawling underground facility 600 feet
beneath the frozen wilderness in Quebec.
Latreille, a hard-hitting journalist with the
French-language public broadcaster Radio-Canada, and his cameraman had just
literally walked into what should have been a secure facility. Yet to their
astonishment, nobody challenged them at the power station that produces
electricity for 1.3 million Quebecers, as well as exporting energy to many
more in New England.
"I had this image in my head of thousands and thousands of
Quebecers in their living rooms watching TV and me having the power of
cutting the power," Latreille said. "And I knew exactly which button to
press."
But that wasn’t all. Latreille and his cameraman then drove
another 1,250 miles to a different set of hydroelectric facilities owned and
operated by Hydro- Quebec, one of Canada’s largest public utilities.
Amazingly, the same scenario was repeated at the Manic, Quebec, set of
hydroelectric facilities, Latreille said.
The ease with which Latreille and his cameraman were
able to gain access to the sensitive sites caused an uproar when their
documentary aired in February. It also raised serious questions about the
security of Canada’s energy infrastructure, which stretches over hundreds of
thousands of miles in often remote and inaccessible locations.
The embarrassed premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, who learned
of the documentary’s existence only after watching it on TV, fired Public
Security Minister Jacques Chagnon and Natural Resources Minister Sam Hamad,
whose portfolio included responsibility for Hydro-Quebec. André Caille, the
Hydro-Quebec CEO, also lost his job.
Hydro-Quebec spokesman Sylvain Théberge said that the
company has undertaken an extensive review of its security and plans to make
an announcement on the matter later this year. But until then, Théberge
said, he could not discuss details of the new security plan. He said only
that Hydro-Quebec is evaluating a state-of-the-art surveillance system for
its critical facilities, and that the utility has hired security guards for
its sensitive sites.
Latreille said Hydro-Quebec has hired a new chief of
security,Mario Laprise, a former top provincial cop.
"He’s got a great reputation [for] fighting organized
crime," said Latreille, who is working on a followup story focusing on
security measures taken by Hydro-Quebec in response to his documentary. "But
many experts in industrial security say it’s not the right approach.
Hydro-Quebec is not a country: Hydro-Quebec is an industrial company, and
you don’t need a police approach to protect dams. You need an industrial
security approach."
Latreille’s documentary also resulted in calls for a greater
involvement by the federal government in protecting Canada’s security
infrastructure.
The Right Approach?
But Janet Bax, senior director at the Infrastructure
Assurance Program at the department of Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness Canada (PSEPC), the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, said focusing too much on terrorist threats to the
exclusion of all others is likely to do more harm than good.
Instead, Canada has adopted an all-hazards approach to
securing its critical infrastructure. Forest fires, floods, landslides,
tsunamis, avian flu, and SARS are hazards that are more likely to occur than
a terrorist attack, Bax said. At the same time, PSEPC has created an
Integrated Threat Assessment Center (ITAC) that analyzes and communicates
all kinds of threats to the infrastructure operators, Bax said.
Michel Juneau-Katsuya, a former high-ranking official with
the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) who now runs his own
corporate security and intelligence-consulting firm, says that a threat and
risk assessment can be described as a "threat to and threat from" exercise.
While most security people can do a decent "threat to"
assessment—identifying critical pieces of equipment or information that have
to be protected —only a small number can do the "threat from" assessment:
the "Who wants to hurt me?" part that comes from a good intelligence
assessment.
"When you compare the two things together, you realize that
the Latreille incident was just a media show," said Juneau-Katsuya. His
company, The Northgate Group Corp., was hired by Hydro-Quebec to help create
a viable security plan. Juneau-Katsuya said radical Islamic terrorists have,
so far, not been interested in targeting critical infrastructure in Canada.
The terrorists want to hit a symbol of a nation, kill people and promote
fear. Currently, infrastructure, which would have more of a military or
economic value, is not in their plans.
On the other hand, sabotage of the critical energy
infrastructure by radical environmentalist groups, antiglobalization
militants or simply disgruntled employees is of greater concern than the
threat from Islamic terrorist groups, Juneau-Katsuya said. Canada already
has had to deal with radical environmentalist sabotage of its lumber
industry, Juneau-Katsuya noted. In addition, Canada’s energy infrastructure
could be targeted by anti-globalization radicals because it exports to the
United States.
Last year, a previously unknown group claimed responsibility
for the bombing of a high-tension tower transporting energy to the United
States. The amateurish bombing caused little damage and did not interrupt
the flow of electricity, but it did cause a public relations headache for
Hydro-Quebec. In the United States itself, there were five sabotage attempts
against the electricity transporting infrastructure last year, Juneau-Katsuya
said.
"Are we witnessing an emergence of a trend? We’re not sure
yet; we don’t have enough information," he said. "But it looks like some
people might have identified transportation of electricity as a weak point."
Government Safeguards
Greg Stringham, vice president of the Canadian Association
of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), which represents about 150 oil and gas
producing companies, said Canada remains the most reliable and biggest
energy supplier to the United States. According to CAPP, Canada supplies 15
percent of U.S. gas needs and 10 percent of its oil needs.
The oil and gas industry always has been very strong when it
comes to emergency response, said Stringham, whose association assists in
security coordination within the industry. The industry has filed and tested
detailed plans of how to deal with different contingencies, ranging from
industrial accidents to natural disasters or terrorist attacks, he said.
"But Sept. 11, 2001, was a big wake-up event for everyone,
and it caused us to start looking at what we can do proactively," he said.
The industry got together with the Canadian and U.S. governments to organize
a two-way communications system, as well as a precise communications
protocol with a common threat vocabulary, which would allow the members not
only to receive information about possible threats but also distribute
information from their sources, Stringham said. CAPP has been looking at
safety and security around the industry’s critical infrastructure, he added.
The industry has more than 120,000 oil and gas-producing wells and hundreds
of thousands of miles of redundant pipelines, Stringham said.
Even major gas and oil pipelines have multiple parallel
lines, which adds to the reliability of the entire system. At the same time,
the industry is working with closely governments to make sure that the
critical points in the system are well protected, Stringham added. CAPP, in
consultation with the Alberta government, has established a "best practices"
security guidebook for facilities at different levels of alert. The Alberta
Counter-Terrorism Crisis Management Plan was the biggest piece of work that
the oil and gas industry has done in conjunction with the Alberta
government, Stringham said.
"Having said that, there has never been a need to use that
plan, and there has never been a threat we are aware of in Canada,"
Stringham continued. "But it’s good to be prepared."
In addition, the federal and provincial governments across
Canada have set up a secret list of the critical infrastructure, Stringham
said. CAPP also works closely with the Security Information Management Unit
established by the office of Alberta’s solicitor general. This organization
gathers intelligence and sets threat levels for the province.
Is a Private-Sector Solution Preferred?
But instead of adding new layers of bureaucracy, Juneau-Katsuya
suggests creating an independent privatesector organization that would deal
with the security needs of the energy industry. That private-sector
organization would be better suited than government to deal with the three
major components of risk management: risk assessment, risk mitigation and
risk transfer, the most neglected of three, Juneau-Katsuya said. Juneau-Katsuya
argued that a private organization modeled after U.S. Information Sharing
and Analysis Centers, but with more emphasis on intelligence analysis, would
be far more effective than another government-run bureaucracy.
"I think one of the problems that we have in Canada is that
we’re still in the old paradigm that the government is the solution to these
things. I disagree. Security is everybody’s business. The private sector
must get involved." .
Levon Sevunts is a Canadian journalist who has written about
homeland security issues for numerous publications.
|