Mikkelsen A., Langhelle O. (eds.) Arctic Oil and Gas. Sustanability at Risk?
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
146 Aslaug Mikkelsen, Sharman Haley and Olaug Øygarden
gave great deference to the local council determination, and all state and
federal permits for the project had to follow suit. The standards in the local
plan are legally enforceable.
In 2003, to streamline the process of CMP consistency reviews, make the
standards more uniform state-wide and expedite development, the state
administration and legislature overhauled the state’s authorizing legislation.
The governing Coastal Policy Council, comprised of a majority of repre-
sentatives from local districts, was disbanded, program authority was trans-
ferred from the DGC to the Department of Natural Resources, and
regulations of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation were
removed from the coordinated review process. The new law and regulations
narrowed the authority of coastal districts to write enforceable policies
restricting development and protecting subsistence and other resources.
Specifically, the amendments:
– restricted the area where a consistency review can be conducted to the
coastal zone – the effect was to exclude uplands which previously had
been included in so far as activities in the watershed might affect
coastal resources or uses;
– changed the definition of aquatic habitat from being able to
sustain biological organisms to being able to meet water quality
standards;
– eliminated subsistence uses as the highest priority; and
– changed the standard for environmental damage that requires
mitigation.
The state CMP office also serves a coordination function for all the
various state permits that an operator needs to explore and develop a
field, such as right of way, water use, lease operations, land use, Title 16
fish habitat authorization, air quality control, storage of drilling wastes,
permit to drill, disposal wells and discharge prevention and contingency
plan. The state permit review process solicits written comments but
does not customarily provide for oral testimony. Federal agency actions
such as permitting development in NPRA require public hearings with oral
testimony.
The North Slope Borough Planning Commission must also review the
development master plan, assess compliance with Borough policies, and
reclassify the target acreage for development.
Textbox 7.4 Revenues from oil and gas
Almost all current Alaska oil and gas production occurs on state lands. As the
landowner, the state earns revenue from leasing as: (1) upfront bonuses, (2)
annual rent charges and (3) a retained royalty interest in oil and gas production.
Generally, the state issues leases based on a competitive bonus bid system. It
has always retained a royalty interest of at least 12.5 per cent, with a few leases
ranging as high as 20 per cent and some as a net profit-share production
agreement. Alaska’s royalty, rent and bonus bid income in FY 2005 totaled $1.9
billion. The Alaska Constitution provides that at least 25 per cent of the state’s
royalty, rent and bonus income must be deposited into the principal of the
Alaska Permanent Fund, and an additional 25 per cent is funneled into the Fund
by statutory law. In 2005 the cumulative value of the Alaska Permanent Fund
was 32 billion dollars. Investment earnings from the Fund are used to pay a
dividend each year to everyone who has lived in the state for at least one year.
The dividend is based on 50 per cent of the five-year average of fund earnings.
The amount of the dividend peaked at $1964 in 2000; by 2005 it was back
down to 845 dollars, and is now rising again.
In its capacity as a taxing authority, the state levies a production or sever-
ance tax based on wellhead value of the oil, as well as an oil and gas prop-
erty tax and a corporate income tax. These revenues amounted to $863.2,
$260.7 and $524 million respectively in FY 2005. Property taxes are shared
with local governments: the North Slope Borough share was $192.8
million. The gross value of North Slope oil production in fiscal year 2005
was $13 billion (Alaska Department of Revenue, 2006).
While the state of Alaska manages resources within three miles of the
coast, the US Minerals Management Service, Alaska Region, manages
offshore energy and mineral resources from 3 to 200 nautical miles. The
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act grants the state a 27 per cent
share of federal revenues from mineral development in the first three miles
of the federal OCS, i.e. 3–6 miles from shore, as designated in section 8(g)
of the Act. There is no provision in law for OCS revenue sharing beyond
the 8(g) zone. To provide additional incentive for local support of expanded
OCS leasing, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created the coastal impact
assistance program to provide grants to mitigate the impact of OCS oil and
gas development on coastal communities.
Alaska’s North Slope Borough, for example, has in the past expressed
concern that an offshore industry would disrupt North Slope communi-
ties without bringing benefits – communities would have to deal with
any impacts on subsistence hunting, for example, but the borough
would not be able to collect property taxes for outer continental shelf
industrial facilities.
(Petroleum News 12 (10), Week of March 11, 2007)
Expanding oil and gas activities on the North Slope of Alaska 147
148 Aslaug Mikkelsen, Sharman Haley and Olaug Øygarden
Alaska’s allocation for FY 2007 and 2008 will be $848,750; one-third
of this – $276,449 – will be available for grants on the North Slope,
consistent with a state plan to be approved by the MMS.
On shore, Alaska receives 50 per cent of the federal revenues from oil
and gas lease sales located in the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska. A
portion of these revenues is disbursed in grants to mitigate impacts on
local communities. Under the Alaska Statehood Act, the state is entitled to
90 per cent of federal revenues from unreserved federal lands in the state,
but none of the federal lands on the North Slope falls in this classification.
In fiscal year 2006, the federal government received $68 million in mineral
revenues from federal lands in Alaska and returned $25.7 million to the
state in revenue sharing; $11 million of this was from OCS oil royalties.
The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) and Kuukpik Village
Corporation also own land in the Alpine oil field, for which they receive
royalties and land rents. Under the section 7(i) provisions of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 70 per cent of natural resource royalties
must be shared with the other 11 regional corporations. In fiscal year 2005
the estimated total value of these royalties was around $100 million,
of which ASRC and Kuukpik retained $20.7 and an estimated $9 million,
respectively. In addition, Kuukpik received land rents amounting to
600 thousand dollars.
Other
13.2%
Industry pipeline profits
2.4%
State and local pipeline
Taxes 0.8%
Pipeline cost recovery
4.6%
Production costs
14.6%
Federal pipeline taxes
1.3%
Marine transporation
costs 4.1%
Industry profits
38.9%
Royalties
10.9%
Federal income taxes
13.0%
State and local taxes
9.4%
Figure 7.1 Allocation of gross Alaskan North Slope (ANS) production value 2004
(US$13.3 billion total). Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Borough and the ANCSA corporations depend on revenue from oil and
gas. The NSB levies a property tax on oil and gas facilities. Owing to deprecia-
tion of the facilities, revenues are decreasing and new activity is needed to get the
budget back up. There are no short or known long-term alternatives to oil and gas
for this. The power and money of the oil and gas industry is mirrored in the Arctic
Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). The corporation’s subsidiaries compete for
contracts from the oil companies, and they need the industry to make money. This
need is also relevant at the level of the individual residents, because many of them
depend on ANCSA corporation dividends being paid out every year.
Yet community development, a subsistence livelihood and the rights of the
indigenous people are over-riding concerns voiced at the regional and local level.
Subsistence activities are identified as the core identity of the people and the glue
of the communities. A representative of a village corporation argued that, since
ANCSA corporation stocks are not traded, they have more freedom than larger oil
and gas corporations to delay development and wait for the best design to protect
community interests.
The state and federal authorities are another important group of stakeholders.
Revenues from oil and gas activities seem to be the main interest at the state level,
and there is broad support for both onshore and offshore development as long as the
state retains authority to regulate. Under the current administration, the federal
government is perceived as aggressively pro-development, primarily for reasons of
domestic energy supply and national security. The cognizant agencies, however,
reflect a more mixed agenda. Every agency in Department of the Interior is tasked
with good stewardship of the land and resources under their jurisdiction. The
mission of the Minerals Management Service (MMS), to manage outer continental
shelf (OCS) mineral resources and revenues ‘to enhance public and trust benefits,
promote responsible use, and realize fair value,’ is most focused on resource
development, tempered only by ‘responsible use’ and compliance with federal envi-
ronmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act. The Bureau of
Land Management, by contrast, manages multiple resources and uses, including:
energy and minerals; timber; forage; recreation; fish and wildlife habitat; wilder-
ness areas; and archaeological, paleontological and historical sites. Practices such
as re-vegetation, protective fencing and water development are designed to
conserve and enhance public land, including soil and watershed resources. The
mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge and also the Endangered Species Act, is the most focused on
conservation. Its mission is ‘to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and
plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.’Yet oil
and gas development may be allowed in a wildlife refuge if it is found to be compat-
ible with the primary purposes of the refuge. Within each agency as well there are
sometimes differences of opinion between line staff who work in the field and
higher level policy-makers concerning the proper balance between resource devel-
opment, environmental protection and accommodation of other stakeholder values.
Some federal scientists have taken considerable initiative to ensure that their profes-
sional opinions are accurately presented in policy circles.
Expanding oil and gas activities on the North Slope of Alaska 149
Neither our Native informants nor the representatives of the industry on the
North Slope seem to view environmental organizations as particularly important
stakeholders. This was sometimes explained as being a result of the different ways
the local population and these non-governmental organizations (NGOs) view
environmental protection. The environmental NGOs often take a more radical
conservationist stand than the local people who depend on the possibilities for
hunting and whaling. The Alaska Coalition and allied environmental organiza-
tions do participate in the public review of environmental impact statements
(EISs) and frequently challenge agency decisions in court, but thus far their
success and effect have been limited.
Independent of level or group of stakeholders, the only ‘acceptable’ opinion on
Native Alaskan issues is to support Inupiat subsistence activities related to
bowhead whaling and caribou hunting. Everyone agrees on the need to operate
industry in a way that does not destroy the environment for subsistence. Indirectly
several informants question this position by mentioning all the factors in the past,
present and future that make a subsistence livelihood impossible, but they never
directly or bluntly say that a subsistence livelihood should cease to exist.
However, stakeholders vary on how much they are willing to compromise
between development of oil and gas and whale and caribou hunting. The non-
profit tribal organizations seem to compromise less than the for-profit organiza-
tions, but there are ambiguous attitudes there as well. For example, Kaktovik City
Council has declared Shell, who is planning to start offshore activities, a hostile
force, but the village corporation disagrees with this resolution and the local
whaling captains have signed an agreement with Shell through the AEWC. The
ASRC is involved in offshore operations, although they have not yet officially
stated that they support this kind of activity. A representative of the NSB speaks
of how ASRC in reality is an oil company, and that the NSB sometimes gets
ASRC’s position ‘thrown in their faces.’ To outsiders, the ASRC represents an
entity with Native backing, so when the ASRC agrees to developments, others
can say to the opposing Borough ‘but the Native people agree, because the
ASRC says so.’
Stakeholder discourses
On the North Slope, several signals of unsustainable global development and
threats to sustainable community development are reported. First, it is claimed
that the oil activities on the North Slope have displaced wildlife and reduced the
Inupiat people’s access to their traditional hunting areas. With the expansion to
the offshore, it is feared that constructions and noise of the activities will deflect
whales and make traditional, subsistence bowhead whaling impossible, and oil
spills will harm marine life. Second, modernization and influence from outside by
the media, Internet and travels foster a Western style of living and cash economy
that erode traditions and cultural values. Dependence on money and modern
equipment is also threatening the social structure of the communities. Increased
access through roads and airstrips may increase the population impact on the
150 Aslaug Mikkelsen, Sharman Haley and Olaug Øygarden
Expanding oil and gas activities on the North Slope of Alaska 151
land, exposing it to hard use, which threatens the flora and fauna. Third, global
warming is changing the animal and human habitat and is making the traditional
knowledge of ice conditions and safe harvesting less valuable. Finally, pollution
from energy use in the Western world has already contaminated the Arctic food
chain and raises fears about the safety of subsistence foods. Pollution also consti-
tutes a threat to biodiversity.
Environmental sustainability
The Alaska Coalition, being one of the more influential environmental NGOs,
ranks the environment as the number one key of the three sustainable develop-
ment pillars, closely followed by the social aspect. They ask if oil development
has a place in a sustainable development: ‘it kind of goofs up the whole idea.’
An ASRC employee puts it differently: ‘I think that if you have the environmental
and the economic down, well balanced, the social sustainability follows
from that.’
The environmental organizations argue that the industry goes by its bottom line
and favors the economics above all. They further argue that the state of Alaska
and the federal government are influenced by who is in power. In the federal
government, there is some variation in focus with different administrations. The
Bush administration is seen as extremely industry friendly, but the former
President tried to be more balanced about sustainable development. The state puts
the economic benefits above the environmental issues because the politicians
want to please the majority of constituents. In total, the current situation seems to
be that both state and federal governments are heavily tilted toward favoring
industry, not locals or the environment.
Most of the impact assessment that has been done on the North Slope has been
environmental. One of the key actors in this has been the NSB. An ASRC
spokesman said that the development on the North Slope has been very environ-
mentally aware, maybe more so than anywhere else in the world, but he was more
worried about potential offshore developments.
The bureaucrats at the NSB are optimistic about sustainable development of
the North Slope seen from a Native perspective. They argue that there has been
no lasting damage to the environment. In their view, sustainability means that
there has to be a positive relationship between the oil and gas companies and the
communities. Some local people are in a way also defending themselves from the
outsiders coming to the community and talking about sustainable development.
An ASRC representative said: ‘sometimes the term sustainable development is
held up because of the bad conscience of people from elsewhere – they hold
higher standards for this area because they feel guilty about their own dirty high-
ways and stuff.’ The informant admitted that the older developments such as
Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk had extensive impacts, but newer developments like
the Alpine have small footprints. Several people argue along these lines; new
technologies like directional drilling reduce the footprint of development and the
environment is almost unaffected.
152 Aslaug Mikkelsen, Sharman Haley and Olaug Øygarden
Are there any cumulative effects?
Environmentalists, governmental authorities and the industry agree that the level
of awareness of possible negative (and positive) effects of the oil and gas activities
has risen over the years. However, there are different story lines about the situa-
tion. One group of people, including regional authorities, their consultants and a
committee within the National Research Council, are talking about the need for an
integrated management plan. They see problems with the practice of issuing
permits project by project, making it difficult to assess possible cumulative effects.
Other people, for example, in the state agencies, deny the presence of cumulative
effects, and warn about the idea of zero effect: ‘We don’t live in a world that has
zero risk. There has to be a balance between what actually is protecting the envi-
ronment, and what is protecting a cultural way of life and what just is silly.’
Consultants for the NSB have recently completed a comprehensive land use
plan
4
that tries to address all kinds of development, and particularly oil and gas.
A core concept in the report is the cumulative impacts and how much of the area
can be developed before you reach a tipping point in terms of impacts on air qual-
ity, water quality, fish and wildlife, and culture. Several NSB employees also
talked about these cumulative impacts. Other informants, for example a represen-
tative from the National Academy of Science, would like to see the resource
managers in the state and federal governments adopt an integrated management
plan for oil and gas that explicitly addresses these cumulative impacts.
On the North Slope, Nuiqsut is often used as an example of the consequences of
not having a comprehensive plan for an area. Nuiqsut is on the leading edge of
development. The initial development was centralized and not near any communi-
ties, but it has continued to expand. Local people claim to recognize changes in
animal migration and numbers. This affects the hunting. The road development and
increased access makes some supplies less expensive, but it also brings more people
in and there is more competition for resources. There has been development of
schools, water systems and other infrastructure, and people worry about what will
happen to these new services if Borough revenues decline. At the same time, there
have also been some very negative impacts and social changes, such as escalating
drug and alcohol abuse. The introduction of foods that are not typical in the culture
is seen to be the cause of other accelerating health changes, such as diabetes.
Offsite and cumulative impacts are much harder to deal with in regulations or
permits than impacts from a specific project. Regulatory officials emphasize how
difficult it is to place a costly requirement on the applicant to address cumulative
effects and to calculate that applicant’s fair share of the cost when there are cumu-
lative effects. The consultants to the NSB described some of the difficulties with
a regional perspective for the whole North Slope. When a lease is sold, no one
knows what will be found and the industry cannot say what they are going to
build. If they may make a find, there is a gap between the broad level of lease
sales and very specific projects. There is no intermediate level between an explo-
ration lease stage to a comprehensive overview of the whole area and how a
reasonable infrastructure plan can be made to support all of the projects there.
Expanding oil and gas activities on the North Slope of Alaska 153
Also, a lot of the information is proprietary, so there are many barriers to devel-
oping a coordinated approach. Companies are inclined to think of one project and
its own associated infrastructure. Nevertheless, cumulative environmental and
social impact assessments of oil and gas activities have been included in the most
recent EIS statements for the Northeast and Northwest NPR-A, the Alpine
Satellite Development Plan and the various Beaufort Sea lease sales.
Some of the state and federal informants together with some of the industry repre-
sentatives denied the cumulative effects of the oil and gas activities. One of them
said: ‘What is the cumulative impact? When you put less than one per cent gravel on
the ground? I’m sorry, but cumulative impacts are a figment of the environmentalist
imagination. And the idea that there’s no comprehensive plan, is also nonsense.’
Are there effects on caribou?
One debate about footprints is whether the caribou have moved away from the
infrastructure or not. Widely circulated company propaganda displays pictures of
caribou next to the pipeline and (correctly) asserts that the Central Arctic caribou
herd is growing. Yet local hunters claim that migrating caribou have been
observed to shy away from pipelines. Research biologists find that caribou at times
will seek the shade of the pipeline, but that cow caribou at the time of calving
avoid infrastructure by 4 km or more (Griffith and Cameron, 1998).
A related issue of debate is hunting access. Hunting and the subsistence way of
life will be affected by changes in access to traditional areas, not only decreased
access but increased as well. A former top manager in the state administration
said that the biggest compromise will be that achieving the economic advantages
requires a trade-off of a certain amount of the habitat affected and a certain poten-
tial change of growth and population. With the growth of population, subsistence
is dramatically affected. With new access roads, people can drive a pickup truck
into areas that used to be accessible only by snow machine.
A state representative emphasized the increased access that comes with the
roads and infrastructure. He questioned whether changes in the animal popula-
tions had happened owing to increased development or if it was caused by addi-
tional hunting pressure brought on by the access. According to him, some issues
have scientific credibility, but others are emotional or even brought up by
environmental groups for fundraising purposes. Research biologists assert that
hunting pressure alone will not have a significant effect on herd population, but
that the disturbance caused by human activities of any sort can, at critical times,
negatively affect caribou feeding and energy balance.
Are there effects on whales?
Whaling is central to Inupiat subsistence, social structure and identity. The promi-
nence of whaling captains in the political and corporate leadership is a testament to
this. With arguments of saving marine mammals from extinction, some environ-
mental organizations and the International Whaling Commission (IWC) have
154 Aslaug Mikkelsen, Sharman Haley and Olaug Øygarden
objected to the traditional Inupiat bowhead whaling. The indigenous community
has been able, particularly through the AEWC, to maintain their whaling quota
through the use of modern science and traditional knowledge. Integrating both
kinds of knowledge led to a more realistic picture of how numerous the bowhead
population is.
The main arguments used against offshore activities are the noise that could
deflect the whales and the risk of major oil spills. A state representative said that
the probability of a large spill is deemed extremely low, and that the cumulative
effects of small spills are also small. Transportation is the riskiest part of offshore
oil activities as far as spills are concerned; it is not the exploration, drilling or
production. But even transportation risks can be met to a large degree by technol-
ogy. The Inupiat, however, have a very low risk tolerance for oil spills.
The Inupiat call the offshore their garden, and the debate has been contentious
for many years. Representatives of the NSB say that they have opposed offshore
activities until now, but that they do not have sufficient power to stop it. They say
that they can probably slow it down, but they doubt that anybody has the power
to stop it now. Representatives of the Native corporations also explain that the
offshore issue is complicated. The corporations depend on growth of the oil and
gas activities for their business livelihood, and that might mean doing business
offshore too. Local conflicts arise when the Native corporations try to combine
political objectives with doing business. The local politicians have to answer the
question of ‘what do we tell the people?’.
Other informants also recognized that this is a dilemma for local politicians.
The first offshore development was called the North Star, and the NSB Mayor
negotiated it with the industry. In villages other than Barrow, people thought of
the Mayor as being opposed to the project, but in reality he was negotiating
with the companies. The people in these positions have to balance the wish
to stand up for the regional wishes with the fact that they are facing an ‘over-
whelming industry.’
A consultant said that companies get permits in spite of protests from the local
whaling captains and the research they may present. The law requires making an
effort to evaluate the impacts and look at reasonable alternatives, and the agen-
cies may impose some restrictions that try to eliminate or minimize the impact,
but they rarely deny a development permit.
The same consultant reports that many people in the NSB think the social and
environmental impact assessments are superficial. The industry, the government
and the regulatory agencies care more about development than about long-term
impacts to the communities. The actors end up making compromises concerning
seasonal restrictions, setbacks or geographic offsets. So far, he claims, this seems
to be the primary approach between the whalers and the industry on the question
of seismic exploration too. There is not a mature body of science on bioacoustics,
effects of various types of transportation or seismic activities at this time. State
representatives that support offshore drilling argue that the main challenges
offshore are technological, but acknowledge that not all the solutions have been
found yet: ‘In areas with pack ice, the technology has not been proven, and the
sub sea completions are just being proven, so you have a question about having
sufficient technology to be able to develop successfully.’
Are there technological solutions to environmental conflicts?
Some of the recent conflicts between the Native people, the local and regional
authorities, and the industry are about the technological solutions that the compa-
nies want to choose. In 2006, Nuiqsut saw a dispute between ConocoPhillips and
the local community about a proposed pipeline and vehicle bridge crossing a
channel in the Colville River that is very important for subsistence fishing. The
local people opposed the design of the bridge because they fear the buttress will
cause erosion and silting that will harm fish habitat. They also worry that the
pipeline is designed to have only one and not two walls. Kuukpik, the village
ANCSA corporation, has managed to halt the process by showing that the envi-
ronmental conditions demand another alternative, for example, a buried pipeline
going under the river.
Another conflict revolved around the offshore prospect McCovey. The main
corporate owners tried to get the project through the permitting process, but the
NSB strongly objected to the plan to build a giant ice island on which to situate
the infrastructure, because it might impact marine life. After a long disagreement
that included a court case, the two major partners dropped the project. A small
company, which had been a silent partner in the first process, took over as the
operator. They decided to use a drilling barge instead of the ice island, and prom-
ised to shut it down if whales were spotted in the vicinity and only to do drilling
in the winter. The Borough felt much more comfortable with this alternative and
the necessary permits were given. This project was brought up by several inform-
ants as an example of how a permitting conflict was solved by better communi-
cation and technological creativity.
These are both discussions about available technology, price and footprints. For
the industry, available technology might mean available at a certain price,
whereas for the Native people, it means the technology that makes the least foot-
print independent of price. One informant claimed that the companies will always
try to get the cheapest alternative permitted first, and then improve the environ-
mental protection if they are forced to do so.
The strongest supporters of development had a strong belief in how technology
would solve future conflicts. One state representative says: ‘Alpine is the future.
It is what ANWR development will be like, what development will be like in the
NPR-A. Now you see that the wells are very close together, there’s very few of
them, because you can drill from one common point, and tap the oil in all these
different directions.’
Must people choose between traditions and modernity?
Asking about sustainable development for the Arctic also brings about a discussion
about the scale of sustainability. Native people are concerned about sustainable
Expanding oil and gas activities on the North Slope of Alaska 155