The nation’s economy and security are heavily dependent on oil, natural gas, and other energy commodities. Nearly half of the nation’s oil is transported from overseas by tankers. For example, about 49 percent of the nation’s crude oil supply—one of the main sources of gasoline, jet fuel, heating oil, and many other petroleum products—was transported by tanker into the United States in 2009. The remaining oil and natural gas used in the United States comes from Canada by pipeline or is produced from domestic sources in areas such as offshore facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. With regard to these domestic sources, the area of federal jurisdiction—called the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)—contains an estimated 85 million barrels of oil, more than all onshore resources and those in shallower state waters combined. In addition, the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP), a deepwater port, is responsible for transporting about 10 percent of imported oil into the United States. As the lead federal agency for maritime security, the Coast Guard seeks to mitigate many kinds of security challenges in the maritime environment. Doing so is a key part of its overall security mission and a starting point for identifying security gaps and taking actions to address them. Carrying out these responsibilities is a difficult and challenging task because energy tankers often depart from foreign ports and are registered in countries other than the United States, which means the United States has limited authority to oversee the security of such vessels until they enter U.S. waters. Offshore energy infrastructure also presents its own set of security challenges because some of this infrastructure is located many miles from shore. The FBI shares responsibility with the Coast Guard for preventing and responding to terrorist incidents in the maritime environment, including incidents involving energy tankers. Energy tankers face risks from various types of attack. We identified three primary types of attack methods against energy tankers in our 2007 report, including suicide attacks, armed assaults by terrorists or armed bands, and launching a “standoff” missile attack using a rocket or some other weapon fired from a distance. In recent years, we have issued reports that discussed risks energy tankers face from terrorist attacks and attacks from other criminals, such as pirates. Terrorists have attempted— and in some cases carried out—attacks on energy tankers since September 11, 2001. To date, these attacks have included attempts to damage tankers or their related infrastructure at overseas ports. For example, in 2002, terrorists conducted a suicide boat attack against the French supertanker Limburg off the coast of Yemen, and in 2010, an incident involving another supertanker, the M/V M. Star, in the Strait of Hormuz is suspected to have been a terrorist attack. Our work on energy tankers identified three main places in which tankers may be at risk of an attack: (1) at foreign ports; (2) in transit, especially at narrow channels, or chokepoints; and (3) at U.S. ports. For example, foreign ports, where commodities are loaded onto tankers, may vary in their levels of security, and the Coast Guard is limited in the degree to which it can bring about improvements abroad when security is substandard, in part because its activities are limited by conditions set by host nations. In addition, while tankers are in transit, they face risks because they travel on direct routes that are known in advance and, for part of their journey, they may have to travel through waters that do not allow them to maneuver away from possible attacks. According to the Energy Information Administration, chokepoints along a route make tankers susceptible to attacks. Further, tankers remain at risk upon arrival in the United States because of the inherent risks to port facilities. For example, port facilities are generally accessible by land and sea and are sprawling installations often close to population centers. Beyond the relatively rare threat of terrorist attacks against tankers, the threat of piracy has become relatively common. In particular, piracy threatens tankers transiting one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes near key energy corridors and the route through the Suez Canal. The vast areas at risk for piracy off the Horn of Africa, combined with the small number of military ships available for patrolling them, make protecting energy tankers difficult. According to the International Maritime Bureau, 30 percent (490 of 1,650) of vessels reporting pirate attacks worldwide from 2006 through 2010 were identified as tankers. See table 1 for a summary of tankers attacked by pirates during 2006 through 2010. As shown in the table, pirate attacks against tankers have tripled in the last 5 years, and the incidence of piracy against tankers continues to rise. From January through June 2011, 100 tankers were attacked, an increase of 37 percent compared to tankers attacked from January through June 2010. Figure 1 shows one of the recent suspected pirate attacks. In addition, tankers are fetching increasing ransom demands from Somali pirates. Media reports indicate a steady increase in ransoms for tankers, from $3 million in January 2009 for the Saudi tanker Sirius Star, to $9.5 million in November 2010 for the South Korean tanker Samho Dream, to $12 million in June 2011 for the Kuwaiti tanker MV Zirku. The U.S. Maritime Administration and the Coast Guard have issued guidance for commercial vessels to stay 200 miles away from the Somali coast. However, pirates have adapted and increased their capability to attack and hijack vessels to more than 1,000 miles from Somalia using mother ships, from which they launch smaller boats to conduct the attacks. To address the growing concern over piracy, the Coast Guard has issued a directive with guidelines for U.S. vessels operating in high- risk waters. This directive provides vessel owners and operators with direction for responding to emerging security risks. Offshore energy infrastructure also faces risks from various types of attacks. For example, in 2004, a terrorist attacked an offshore oil terminal in Iraq using speedboats packed with explosives, killing two U.S. Navy sailors and a U.S. Coast Guardsman. Potential attack methods against offshore energy infrastructure identified by the Coast Guard or owners and operators include crashing an aircraft into it; using a submarine vessel, diver, or other means of attacking it underwater; ramming it with a vessel; and sabotage by an employee. Offshore energy infrastructure may face security risks because this infrastructure is located in open waters and generally many miles away from Coast Guard assets and personnel. In addition to our work on energy tankers, we have recently completed work involving Coast Guard efforts to assess security risks and ensure the security of offshore energy infrastructure. Specifically, our work focused on two main types of offshore energy infrastructure that the Coast Guard oversees for security. The first type are facilities that operate on the OCS and are generally described as facilities temporarily or permanently attached to the subsoil or seabed of the OCS that engage in exploration, development, or production of oil, natural gas, or mineral resources. As of September 2010, there were about 3,900 such facilities, and if a facility of this type meets or exceeds any one of three thresholds for production or personnel, it is subject to 33 C.F.R. part 106 security requirements. In this testimony, we focus on the 50 facilities that, in 2011, are regulated for security because they meet or exceed the threshold criteria. We refer to these security-regulated facilities as OCS facilities. The second type of offshore energy infrastructure are deepwater ports, which are fixed or floating manmade structures used or intended for use as a port or terminal for the transportation, storage, or handling of oil or natural gas to any state and includes the transportation of oil or natural gas from the United States’ OCS. There are currently four licensed deepwater ports—two in the Gulf of Mexico and two in Massachusetts Bay. Unlike OCS facilities, which are involved in the production of oil or natural gas, deepwater ports enable tankers to offload oil or liquefied natural gas for transport to land by underwater pipelines. In 2007, we assessed Coast Guard and FBI efforts to ensure the security of energy tankers and respond to terrorist incidents involving energy tankers. We found that actions were being taken, internationally and domestically, to protect tankers and port facilities at which tankers would be present. For example, the Coast Guard visits foreign exporting ports to assess the effectiveness of the anti-terrorism measures in place. Additionally, port stakeholders in the United States have taken steps to address vulnerabilities at domestic ports. For example, the Houston Ship Channel Security District is a public-private partnership that was established to increase preparedness and response capabilities with the goal of improving security and safety for facilities, employees, and communities surrounding the Houston Ship Channel. The security district has installed technology, such as night vision and motion-activated detection equipment, and conducts patrols on land and in the water. However, we also reported on challenges that remained in (1) making federal agencies’ protective actions more effective and (2) implementing plans for a response to an attack, if a terrorist attack were to succeed despite the protective measures in place. We made five recommendations in our 2007 report, three of which were directed to the Secretary of Homeland Security and two of which were directed jointly to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General. The departments concurred or partially concurred with all of the recommendations. The Coast Guard and the FBI have made progress in implementing these recommendations—two have been implemented, and the Coast Guard is in the process of implementing a third—but actions have not yet been taken to address the remaining two recommendations. See table 2 for a summary of our findings, recommendations, and the current status of agency efforts to implement our recommendations.