Da Legal Stuff...

All commentaries published on Web Talk are the opinions of the contributor(s) only and do not necessarily represent the position of any other individuals, groups or organizations.

Now, with that out of the way...Let's Web Talk.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Is Al Qaeda Targeting Offshore Oil Platforms on East Coast?

This week Al Qaeda issued a threat over the internet, saying "cutting oil supplies to the United States ... would contribute to the ending of the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan." The group also called for attacks on petroleum facilities in Canada, Mexico and Venezuela.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper responded to the threat saying he takes seriously Al Qaeda’s call for attacks and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said we can protect "all of our assets, both human and structural. He went on to say that government and private industry were keeping a watch on oil pipelines to prevent terrorist actions.

It’s nice to know pipelines are being protected, whatever that means, but what about oil production installations and, a little closer to home here in Newfoundland and Labrador, what about the oil rigs at sea such as Hibernia or White Rose off our shores? Who’s protecting them? Just how vulnerable are these oil rigs as they pump away out at sea?

Does anyone remember the terrorist attack on the USS Cole and how a couple of zealots in a small boat simply sped alongside and blew themselves up? Men died and a great deal of damage was done. Consider as well that this was a US navy vessel that would likely have been on the lookout for attack, not an oil rig with workers going about their daily routines.

Stockwell Day’s grand statement that we can protect “all our assets” may sound great but isn’t it just rhetoric?

Consider that recent reports have identified the sadly under funded state of the Canadian Coast Guard, the Navy has had to cancel maneuvers on multiple occasions because it couldn’t afford to fuel vessels and put them to sea and every day foreign fishing boats go undetected while fishing in the very same waters where these oil platforms are hard at work. It sure doesn’t sound to me like a recipe for tight security.

Considering that none of the problems I’ve just mentioned are any secret, it stands to reason that Al Qaeda terrorists are aware of the issues as well. Essentially there is a total lack of military security off the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador. A lonely oil rig out in the middle of the unforgiving North Atlantic, with no protection in sight, might just look like an easy target and it probably is.

In their attempts to protect oil installations will Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day step up to the plate and assign patrol vessels to protect these offshore installations or will they simply assign a few security guards to check on onshore pipelines? If the history is any indication I think we all know the answer to that.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Next time: Is Stephen Harper stealing my bran muffin?

Pedestrian said...

KKKANADUH STRIKES AGAIN!

Anonymous said...

Well if oil rigs off shore of NL weren't a target before they certainly will be now thanks to your comments Patriot. You make it sound so easy and attractive to attack them.

Anonymous said...

No matter that this may affect millions of people.......all that matters is that it "may" affect NL.

How completely self-centered of you.

Pat said...

Come on anon. First, Atlantic Canada has the only offshore oil structures that are not easily protected in Canada. I suspect patriot was identifying this fact and the need to protect them. (period)

Also, when another anon(or perhaps the same anon) says: "if oil rigs off shore of NL weren't a target before they certainly will be now thanks to your comments" you are showing a total lack of reality. Do you really think terrorists would not have known about these targets without someone bringing them up. Please, take a reality break.

Anonymous said...

It's called "sarcasm".

Good God man, get off the boat and get an education.

Anonymous said...

Artfull dodger said...

It has been said that "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"!

Anonymous said...

But it' still a form of wit!!

Starrigan said...

Anon, you are, how shall I say ... an absolute idiot. You can be sure if there were rigs in Ungava bay off Quebec there would be patrols around the clock.

Anonymous said...

Well yeah..........it's Quebec!!

Duh!

By the way, NL's obvious hatred of Quebec is getting a bit dull. Find a new big bad guy. Oh wait! you did! Big oil and Steven Harper.

Starrigan said...

Wow, very clever indeed. What an absolute knob. Tell me, why do you even bother to read this blog. Isn't there someone else you could be bothering with your grade 4 mentality. Or are you one of WJM's circle jerk buddies?

Anonymous said...

No, no, I'd rather be bothering you.
Appears to be working too.

WJM said...

You can be sure if there were rigs in Ungava bay off Quebec there would be patrols around the clock.

Why?

Ungava Bay isn't in Quebec. Well, the shoreline isn't, but that's all.

Offshore Ungava Bay has no political or legal connection to Quebec.

Paul said...

You see Wally, that's why people don't usually respond to your questions, basically and the anonymous types are idiots and are here just to irritate people. Why you bother to hang around a site you seem to despise is beyond me. There must be "important work" you could be doing somewhere else.

See the exerp below from Britannica, seems they know where Ungava Bay is located. In fact if you check multiple sources you will see they all refer to Ungava bay as being located in Quebec. Should they discover oil in Ungava Bay you can be sure Quebec will be getting a big slice and patrols around the clock. I say that not because of any hatred for Quebec, but because it's a political reality. More votes more attention, it's very simple, even jerk off anonymous posters should be able to fathom that.
So Wally, before you make child like statements like, "Ungava Bay isn't in Quebec" you should check the facts.

Library > Reference > Britannica Concise Ungava Bay

Inlet, southern Hudson Strait, northeastern Quebec, Canada. It is about 200 mi (320 km) long and 160 mi (260 km) wide at its mouth, with a maximum depth of 978 ft (298 m). Fed by several large rivers, including the Koksoak, Leaf, and Payne, it is ice-free only four months a year. At its mouth, Akpatok Island (551 sq mi [1,427 sq km]) rises to 930 ft (283 m).

WJM said...

before you make child like statements like, "Ungava Bay isn't in Quebec" you should check the facts.

Britannica is just as capable of making mistakes as anyone else.

The Quebec Boundaries Extension Act of 1912 provides:

2. The limits of the Province of Quebec are hereby increased so that the boundaries thereof shall include, in addition to the present territory of the said province, the territory bounded and described as follows:
Commencing at the point at the mouth of the East Main river where it empties into James Bay, the said point being the western termination of the northern boundary of the province of Quebec as established by chapter 3 of the Statutes of 1898, entitled An Act respecting the north-western,
northern and north-eastern boundaries of the province of Quebec; thence northerly and easterly along the shores of Hudson bay and Hudson strait;
thence southerly, easterly and northerly along the shore of Ungava bay and the shore of the said strait; thence easterly along the shore of the said strait to the boundary of the territory over which the island of
Newfoundland has lawful jurisdiction...

The boundaries of MB and ON were also extended north to Hudson's Bay and James Bay in 1912, in similar terms.

None of those three provinces has ANY offshore maritime jurisdiction. All the islands in those bays and straits are in Nunavut, even islands just a few feet offshore.

You should read the Dorion Commission report (if you read French) or the works of Norman L. Nicholson on the internal and external boundaries of Canada, if you don't believe me.

Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, only go as far as tidwater. They have no offshore jurisdiction in those northern waters.

There was a Bill back in the mid-1980s (C-104) which would have given the provinces jurisdiction to these offshore areas. It was shelved. If a bill was required to give them that jurisdiction, it means they didn't have it to begin with. And if the Bill was never passed, it means... TA-DA! they still don't.

Anonymous said...

You go WJM!

Anonymous said...

This has got to be the most boring blog on the whole web.

This will is definitely my first and last visit.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...........

Anonymous said...

Paul; ( Feb 20th 1:50 P.M. )--- People don't usually respond to questions they are not capable of answering! Wouldn't you know that from your school days??!!! WJM bugs you still eh?!!!

Anonymous said...

Artfull Dodger ... said

I think it is safe to say that there are individuals posting here who have an agenda.

It is also clear that certain posters, mostly anonymous in nature, who would fall under the catagory of "TROLL".

Regards,

Artfull Dodger

bagwatts said...

Sarcasm is intentionally cruel. Wit is amusing. Both use mental and verbal ingenuity and skill.

westcoastwomyn said...

Is it scary that there isn't any protection offshore. Isn't Atlantic oil one of the U.S's major suppliers?