DR. EICKEN: In Norway it took them 20 years or so to go from the point where we're at now to having in place whatever it is that we're talking about, a system that has different stakeholders involved. How did that move forward? Was that only possible because Norway was already properly configured to allow stakeholders to participate and recognize the fisheries and other local interests as very important?
DR. ZOLOTUKHIN: Take Snohvit, or Snow White, a gas condensate field development which was discovered in 1981 and licensed to a pool of companies with the operator, as an example.
In the region of the continental shelf, there is one company elected as an operator. The role of the operator is to discuss, on behalf of the pool of the companies, all the issues - technical, social, environmental, and so on -- with the state on behalf of the pool. The field operator takes responsibility to discuss things or to bring them to the state and talk.
Statoil was elected as the operator of this field, so it took almost 18 years of continuous discussion between the pool of companies with Statoil representing the pool, and the fisheries or state represented by fisheries' interests in order to develop technology which would be accepted by the fishermen in that area. The fishermen had enough power in the national government that the government was not going to grant licenses for development to Statoil until the fishermen were onboard.
In Norway, the fisheries are very important. It’s second important in national heritage, after oil and gas. But in 8 to 10 years ahead, the fisheries will be the most important heritage because oil is on decline already. Gas will continue, but still oil will not be there. So like it or not, you face it. The fisheries are extremely important stakeholders. To bypass their interests or neglect their opinion was impossible. It took 17 to 18 years of continual discussion until a new development technology, a new conceptual design was presented and approved.
Finally, the fisheries accepted the design because there were benefits, definitely, for developing this field. There was unemployment in northern Norway. So people already were directly interested in development because of important and well-paid jobs. Still in the beginning the overwhelming majority didn't accept earlier solutions because they were afraid that development would violate the environment and so the fish will go.
For local people, it's natural habitat. If you destroy that, they will die. That's it. The subsea completion technology filled all the requirements of the fisheries, so it was accepted and the technology was developed. And now it's a new step. Nobody probably would ever think about the subsea technology if it was a battle between different stakeholders. Consider such an example as positive in terms of how to develop technology. If you can't go straightforward through the walls, find the way out. Use the brain in a way that satisfies everyone, to satisfy everyone. So it was a very good example, but, as I said, Norway was a bit special in these things. That's why it's ahead of the others. Two main stakeholders happened to get together.
DR. EICKEN: How do you get very technical people interested in a broader dialogue? How is it done in Norway? Does that require a law?
DR. TIDWELL: I'm a water resources engineer. In Texas, for example, each water management district has created a law that says each water management unit requires people from all sectors – they all have to be at the table; they have to be included in the process. The idea there was to get them involved in the first place and then, of course, on an ongoing basis to actually encourage a participatory approach to water management. There, as with many places, you have a resource that is used for many different purposes; each user impacts another user that has other impacts and so forth.
DR. HALEY: Yes, if we want petroleum engineers to listen to Iñupiaq hunters, the Iñupiaq hunters have to have some formalized institutional power over the development planning process. Otherwise, the engineers have no incentive to listen to them.
MR. KLICK: Which I think loops back to your question, which is, how does this happen? There is an asymmetry amongst stakeholders and this is not to rail against industry, but nonetheless you have an industry that has incentives towards one direction and then a group of people with incentives towards another direction. Lining those up is the crux.
Back to contents |
