Port and Maritime Security: Potential for Terrorist Nuclear Attack Using Oil Tankers

Port and Maritime Security: Potential for
Terrorist Nuclear Attack Using Oil Tankers
Jonathan Medalia
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
While much attention has been focused on threats to maritime security posed by
cargo container ships, terrorists could also attempt to use oil tankers to stage an attack.
If they were able to place an atomic bomb in a tanker and detonate it in a U.S. port, they
would cause massive destruction and might halt crude oil shipments worldwide for some
time. Detecting a bomb in a tanker would be difficult. Congress may consider various
options to address this threat. S. 12, Targeting Terrorists More Effectively Act of 2005,
included a Tanker Security Initiative (sec. 325). This report will be updated as needed.
Introduction
The attacks of September 11, 2001, heightened interest in port and maritime security.
Much of this interest has focused on cargo container ships because of concern that
terrorists could use containers to transport weapons into the United States, yet only a
small fraction of the millions of cargo containers entering the country each year is
inspected. Some fear that a container-borne atomic bomb detonated in a U.S. port could
wreak economic as well as physical havoc. Robert Bonner, former head of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has argued that
such an attack would lead to a halt to container traffic worldwide for some time, bringing
the world economy to its knees. Stephen Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander and
an expert on maritime security at the Council on Foreign Relations, holds a similar view.¹
While container ships accounted for 30.4% of vessel calls to U.S. ports in 2005,
other ships carried crude oil (12.9%), dry bulk cargo (18.7%), and vehicles (6.0%), among

¹ U.S. Department of the Treasury. “U.S. Customs Commissioner Robert Bonner, Speech Before
the Center for Strategic and International Studies,” Washington, D.C., January 17, 2002; and
Stephen Flynn, America the Vulnerable: How Our Government Is Failing to Protect Us from
Terrorism (New York: HarperCollins, 2004), p. 83.

other things.² These ships merit attention as well because terrorists will look for the weak
link. The 9/11 Commission stressed the importance of a balanced approach to maritime
security.³ To this end, this report focuses on the threat of a terrorist nuclear attack using
oil tanker ships. This threat is of particular interest because the Middle East is the chief
source of anti-U.S. terrorism.
Background
Oil Shipments from the Middle East. Crude oil and other petroleum products⁴
account for almost all export earnings of many Middle Eastern nations. In turn, 28.8%
of net U.S. crude oil imports in September 2006 came from the Middle East.⁵ Crude oil
from the Middle East went to 30 U.S. ports in 2003. Those handling the most oil were
Blaine, WA; El Segundo, Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Richmond, CA; Corpus Christi,
Freeport, Galveston, Houston, Port Arthur, and Texas City, TX; Baton Rouge, Gramercy,
Lake Charles, Morgan City, and New Orleans, LA; Pascagoula, MS; Mobile, AL;⁶
Wilmington, DE; and Paulsboro, NJ.
Crude oil from the Middle East is typically shipped to the United States in
supertankers — Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) and Ultra Large Crude Carriers
(ULCCs). Their size is measured in deadweight tons (DWT), the weight of the stores,
fuel, and cargo they can carry. One DWT is 2,240 lb. While definitions vary slightly,
VLCCs can carry about 200,000 to 300,000 DWT and ULCCs can carry more than

300,000 DWT. Crude oil accounts for almost all of the deadweight tonnage of such ships.

A representative ULCC was 60 meters wide and 350 meters long, and had a draft (depth
below the waterline) of 22 meters. They are the largest ships ever built. The interior of
a tanker is divided into multiple storage tanks.
Both the Coast Guard and the Navy stated that they do not have responsibility for,
or authority over, security of foreign-flagged vessels at foreign ports.⁷ Nor do other
American forces. Security of foreign ports rests with foreign governments.

² U.S. Department of Transportation. Maritime Administration. Vessel Calls at U.S. & World
Ports, 2005, April 2006, p. 1.
³ U.S. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission
Report, Authorized edition (New York: Norton, 2004), p. 391.
⁴ The figures are 90-95% for Saudi Arabia and 95% for Kuwait (source: U.S. Department of
Energy, Energy Information Administration, Country Analysis Briefs) and roughly 85% for Qatar
(source: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook).
⁵ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “Table 37. Imports of Crude
Oil and Petroleum Products into the United States by Country of Origin, September 2006.”
Available at [http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/
petroleum_supply_monthly/current/pdf/table37.pdf]. Nations included for this calculation are
Algeria, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.
⁶ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Data Publications,
“Company Level Imports,” The American Petroleum Institute aggregated the port and monthly
data from these tables for CRS.
⁷ Source: Discussions with Navy and Coast Guard officers, November 2004.

Staging a Terrorist Nuclear Attack Using Tankers. The simplest type of
atomic bomb, and by far the easiest to fabricate, is a gun-assembly bomb, in which one
mass of uranium highly enriched in the fissile isotope 235 (highly enriched uranium, or
HEU) is shot down a tube into another mass of HEU, forming a critical mass and causing
a nuclear explosion. The Hiroshima bomb was of this type; its designers had such
confidence in the design that it was not tested before use. This bomb had an explosive
yield of 15 kilotons (equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT). Excluding the bomb’s outer
casing, fins, and fuses, this device was 6 feet long and about 6 inches in diameter, and⁸
weighed about 1,000 pounds. Some items loaded onto large cargo ships are of similar
or greater size and weight. It might be possible to make a lighter gun-assembly bomb.
To stage a nuclear attack using a tanker, terrorists would need to acquire a nuclear⁹
device and smuggle it (or key components) onto a ship. Their ability to accomplish this
latter task would likely depend on their ability to circumvent local security; on the
reliability of security personnel in oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
and Algeria; and on the reliability of the ship’s officers and crew. Terrorists might seek
to place a nuclear device inside one of a tanker’s oil tanks, which would require sealing
and cushioning the bomb and possibly attaching it to the tank wall; or in a dry space on
the ship; or in a blister attached to the ship underwater. Remotely detonating a bomb
inside an oil tank or underwater might be difficult: it might not be possible to attach wires
leading out to dry spaces, or to send an electromagnetic signal (e.g., a cell phone call)
through water or oil to the bomb. Detonating the bomb with a timer would run the risk
of the ship not being at the target at the specified time. Overcoming these challenges
might be within the ability of a terrorist group resourceful enough to acquire an atomic
bomb. Terrorists might also smuggle a bomb onto a ship at sea, as discussed later.
Potential Targets. Terrorists could be expected to select as their target a port that
handled a large volume of oil and other goods and that had a densely-populated area that
tankers passed on their way through a harbor to an unloading terminal. Various cities
worldwide meet these criteria. If terrorists sought major economic damage while
minimizing loss of life, they might target the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, or LOOP, the
only U.S. deepwater oil port that can handle fully loaded supertankers. LOOP, 18 miles
off the Louisiana coast, handles about 10% of U.S. crude oil imports. The Panama Canal
might be another potential economic target.
Detecting an Atomic Bomb in a Tanker. Some means of detecting atomic
bombs in a tanker would fail, especially for a bomb inside an oil tank. Gamma rays,
essentially high-energy x-rays, are used to create x-ray-type pictures of the contents of
cargo containers, but a tanker’s huge mass of oil and steel would prevent gamma rays
from traveling the width of a tanker. Neutrons may be used to detect fissile material;
neutrons of the appropriate energy level cause such material to fission, producing neutrons
and gamma rays that can be detected. The hydrogen atoms of crude oil, however, would
block neutrons from penetrating. Other candidate techniques include chemical sampling
of oil for traces of extraneous material, and preparing an acoustic profile of a ship when

⁸ Thomas Cochran, William Arkin, and Milton Hoenig, Nuclear Weapons Databook, volume I:
U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1984), p. 32.
⁹ CRS Report RL32595, Nuclear Terrorism: A Brief Review of Threats and Responses, by
Jonathan Medalia, discusses how terrorists might acquire a nuclear device.

known to be “clean” to compare with a profile taken as the ship nears port. The vast
amount of oil in a supertanker works against the former technique; the complex
configuration of tanks on a tanker works against the latter. A more remote possibility,
muon detection, might work if daunting technical challenges could be overcome.¹⁰
Securing Tankers. The difficulty of detecting a bomb aboard a tanker
underscores the importance of keeping bombs off tankers. Securing tankers at loading
terminals would likely involve a security perimeter (including underwater), and measures
to ensure personnel reliability. Items brought on a ship would have to be screened. A
National Nuclear Security Administration program, “Second Line of Defense,” screens
people and baggage for fissile material; similar technology might help secure tankers.
Securing tankers in port might not be sufficient if terrorists could smuggle a bomb
onto a ship at sea. It may be possible to improve security by using surveillance aircraft
or satellites. Security may be a greater issue as tankers slow to navigate straits or
approach port. Several issues arise: (1) Would shippers let crew spend time to upgrade
security beyond current levels? VLCCs have small crews, perhaps 25 to 40 people, who
may have no time for added tasks. (2) If intelligence data indicated a plot to board a
tanker at sea to place a bomb, could a warning be passed without compromising U.S.
intelligence capabilities? (3) This scenario would require the connivance of the entire
crew, or silencing those who opposed the plot. Screening for personnel reliability may
be the only defense against this prospect.
Potential Oversight Questions and Options For Congress
Oversight Questions. Possible oversight questions include the following:
^!How does the Administration view the potential for terrorists to use a
tanker for a nuclear attack? To what extent has the Administration
considered this threat in planning for port and maritime security?
^!If considered a serious threat, what measures is the Administration
implementing to respond to it? When will they be in place? How much
funding is programmed for them over the next few years? Which areas
of detection technology may merit development?
^!Which executive branch office has overall responsibility for examining
or addressing this potential threat? What other executive offices have
responsibilities in this area? Is there adequate coordination among them?

¹⁰ Muons are subatomic particles produced when cosmic rays from space strike atoms in the
upper atmosphere. Some 10,000 muons per minute strike each square meter of Earth. They can
penetrate many meters of rock. Their path is bent slightly in proportion to the density and atomic
number (number of protons in the nucleus) of the material. Los Alamos National Laboratory has
conducted experiments to determine if muons can be used to detect fissile material in cargo
containers. The technique involves placing a flat-plate detector above and below the container
to measure how much the paths of individual muons are bent. Detectors would have to be scaled
up immensely to go from a container to a VLCC. Detection could be time-consuming: the level
of detail increases with number of muons, which increases with time. See Brian Fishbine, “Muon
Radiography: Detecting Nuclear Contraband,” Los Alamos Research Quarterly, Spring 2003.

Potential Options. Congress might consider options such as the following to
further explore the threat discussed in this report.
^!Clarify federal responsibility for tanker security by requiring a lead
federal agency for tanker security and making more explicit the
responsibilities of various federal agencies involved in tanker security.
^!Create a Tanker Security Initiative (TSI) analogous to the Container¹¹
Security Initiative for improving containerized cargo security. TSI
might set security standards for tankers that transport oil to U.S. ports,
and for the ports where they load. Tankers not meeting the standards, or
that come from ports not meeting the standards, could be denied entry to
U.S. ports. Establishing such a regime would undoubtedly require
negotiations with other countries. (See “Legislative Activities,” below.)
^!Ensure that tankers are a focus of maritime domain awareness,
which refers to surveillance and communication systems that would
permit U.S. officials to have a comprehensive understanding at any given
moment of the location and identity of ships at sea.
^!Assure sufficient U.S. intelligence assets are focused on the threat and
possible indications of preparations for such an attack. Terrorists seeking
to acquire or build a bomb and smuggle it onto a tanker would need to go
through certain steps. Similarly, a terrorist bomb placed inside a tank of
crude oil might have certain signatures, such as a way to detonate the
bomb. The Intelligence Community could analyze such steps and
signatures, and be alert to signs of the most critical ones.
^!Determine whether funding is adequate for technologies that hold
some prospect of detecting an atomic bomb aboard a tanker.
^!Keep oil tankers away from U.S. ports by promoting the construction
of more offshore ports like LOOP.
^!Improve international cooperation. Existing international agreements
and organizations that might focus on tanker security include agreements
for countering narcotics, crime, and piracy; the International Maritime
Organization, shipping associations, and Interpol; and the International
Ship and Port Facility Security Code. These efforts could supplement the
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a multilateral effort for interdicting
ships at sea that are suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction.
Ships available for PSI missions might respond to indications of tanker
security problems at sea.¹² The United States could pursue increased
bilateral cooperation with oil-exporting states and countries under whose
flags tankers are registered. Potential measures include improved

¹¹ For more on the Container Security Initiative, see CRS Report RL31733, op. cit.
¹² See CRS Report RS21881, Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), by Sharon Squassoni.

perimeter security at oil-loading terminals and more rigorous background
screening and training of port workers and tanker crew members.
Should Congress conclude that proactive steps should be taken in this area, the issues
of who should pay and how funds should be collected would arise. Costs could be
covered by general revenues. Alternatives would be to charge a fee on ships landing oil
in the United States or to impose a tax on crude oil or petroleum products consumed in
the United States. Congress may also wish to consider whether the issues discussed here
might apply to other types of ships, such as those for carrying cars or dry bulk goods.
Legislative Activities
On January 24, 2005, S. 12, Targeting Terrorists More Effectively Act of 2005, was
introduced and was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Section 325
provides for a Tanker Security Initiative under which “[t]he Secretary of Homeland
Security shall establish a Tanker Security Initiative to promulgate and enforce standards
and carry out activities to ensure that tanker vessels that transport oil, natural gas, or other
materials are not used by terrorists or as carriers of weapons of mass destruction.” As part
of this initiative, the Secretary may develop standards to prevent terrorists from placing
weapons of mass destruction on tankers, develop detection equipment and inspection
procedures, conduct R&D on sensors to detect a nuclear device on a tanker, and aid
foreign countries in carrying out provisions of this initiative. The legislation would also
require the Secretary to submit a report to Congress on terrorism risks posed by tankers,
means of combating this risk, and a proposed budget to carry out this initiative. This
legislation was not reported from committee.
Should the 110^th Congress undertake further consideration of the potential
tanker/nuclear threat, issues that may garner attention include: (1) How might port
security grant programs enhance tanker security? (2) Could imaging or radiation-
detection systems available now, or deployable in the near future, significantly augment
tanker security against this threat? (3) If so, is it worth the money to deploy them now,
or would it be preferable to wait until more advanced systems were available? (4) If not,
does the current R&D investment strategy consider tanker security, and what detection
programs might be developed to do so? These questions might be raised as Congress
oversees implementation of the SAFE Port Act, P.L. 109-347.