• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Impacts and Benefits of Oil and Gas Development to Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Atqasuk Harvesters Prepared for North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management P.O. Box 69 Barrow, Alaska 99723 Prepared by Stephen R. Braund & Associates P.O. Box 1480 Anchorage, Alaska 907-276-8222 907-276-6117 (fax) [email protected] July 2009 This study was funded by the State of Alaska, Department of Community and Economic Development, Division of Community Advocacy under the National Petroleum Reserve -Alaska (NPR-A) Impact Program. Citation: Braund, Stephen R. & Associates. 2009. Impacts and Benefits of Oil and Gas Development to Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Atqasuk Harvesters. Prepared for the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management. Executive Summary This report is based on research performed by Stephen R. Braund and Associates (SRB&A) under contract with the North Slope Borough (NSB). Funding for the project is through a grant from the National Petroleum Reserve -Alaska (NPR-A) Impact Program administered by the State of Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development, Division of Community Advocacy. The study has four objectives: 1. Document the impacts and benefits of oil and gas development as perceived by NSB residents of four communities: Nuiqsut, Barrow, Atqasuk, and Wainwright. Each of these four communities could be potentially affected by oil and gas development in the NPR-A. 2. Document personal experiences with impacts and benefits. 3. Identify ways in which impacts can be mitigated and benefits enhanced. 4. Place oil and gas impacts in the context of how the well-being of North Slope residents has changed over the past thirty years and how it compares with the well-being of other arctic residents. Between January and May 2007, 215 active harvesters from Barrow, Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, and Wainwright shared their experiences and perceptions during individual structured interviews about the impacts and benefits of oil and gas development on the North Slope. They also shared their ideas on how to mitigate impacts and enhance benefits of development. The first part of the interview was designed so that active harvesters identified their own set of impacts and related experiences and mitigation ideas. The second part of the interview was based on the results of an analysis of the content of 54 hearings concerning oil and gas development held on the North Slope between 1975 and 2006. This analysis identified 256 different types of impacts, a sampling of which were shown to active harvesters in the second part of the interview as a method of recalling impact concerns, experiences and mitigation ideas. The final section of the interview measured the well-being of active harvesters. Researchers compared the well-being of active harvesters in 2007 with the well-being of active harvesters in the same four communities in 2003. The 2003 results come from the Survey of Living Conditions in the Arctic (SLiCA), a research project supported by the National Science Foundation. SLiCA data also provide the basis for a comparative analysis of the well-being of North Slope Iñupiat residents in 2003 and the indigenous residents of northern Canada, Greenland, and Chukotka in 2001-2006. Finally, researchers compared the well-being of North Slope Iñupiat residents in 2003 and 1977. The 1977 data were jointly collected by the NSB and the University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER). The 1977 research was also supported by the National Science Foundation. The following are the major conclusions of the study along with key quotes (in italics) and summary statistics: 1. A combination of offshore and cumulative onshore oil and gas development constitutes a new threat to subsistence on the North Slope. Impacts related to caribou and bowhead are of most concern. Nuiqsut and Atqasuk active hunters are more likely to cite personal experiences with displacement of caribou, with Nuiqsut respondents reporting 28 personal experiences with displacement of caribou and 14 personal experiences with bowhead, and Atqasuk respondents reporting 20 personal experiences with displacement of caribou and no experiences with displacement of marine mammals. Barrow and Wainwright active hunters are equally likely to cite personal experiences with displacement of bowhead and displacement of caribou, with Barrow respondents reporting 57 personal experiences with caribou and 51 with marine Stephen R. Braund & Associates i mammals, and Wainwright respondents reporting 15 personal experiences with caribou and 10 with marine mammals. At first they drilled close to the river, then they moved to lakes, and they have pipes staged. The pipes are altering the migration path of the caribou. This further impacts migration routes due to Alpine. When the herd came from the west, they hit Alpine, headed north to the coast, and then went east. This is a change. Much of this was wetlands. They're proposing activity in the Fish Creek area. This will impact us as well. I'm concerned once the bridge is built, all the roads will be built to the west into our traditional hunting ground. (Nuiqsut active harvester. SRB&A Interview 2007) I know the ice; if you say “Chukchi Sea” and "offshore" it's rock and roll ice conditions. You say "Beaufort Sea" and "offshore", it's more like lagoon ice. You have to go much further offshore in the Beaufort Sea to see the kinds of conditions you can see just a few miles offshore in the Chukchi Sea. (Barrow active harvester. SRB&A Interview 2007) 2. North Slope residents fear the consequences of an oil spill; they perceive that industry is unable to clean up spilled oil in icy waters, especially in the strong currents of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Overall, active harvesters cite personal experience with oil spills of some type 133 times. These experiences include 38 direct experiences with oil spills and 34 experiences with inability to clean up oil spills or to work in ice to clean up spills. Barrow and Wainwright active hunters most frequently cite concerns about oil spills while Nuiqsut and Atqasuk active hunters cite concerns about the effects of drilling muds onshore and other contaminant releases on subsistence resources. We keep telling them year round, no matter where, if they have an oil spill and it goes under the ice, they will never be able to clean it up. I have been observing. In the fall time there is too much slush ice for them to reach the oil spill. We understand the waves are bigger. We chose a time for them to go in the fall and they failed. They said they could burn a small amount of oil in a fresh water lake and they failed. All their demonstrations have failed and they say they can clean up a spill. Even now at Atigun Pass they have to wait for spring. Onshore and offshore, they can't clean it up. The oil company tried to prove to us they could clean up oil spills on ice. One experiment was to be able to reach an area in the ocean that was randomly picked and at a time that was picked by someone randomly. They couldn’t reach that area. They also tried to show that they could burn a small amount of oil off of the water. They couldn't successfully clean up a small amount of oil on a fresh water lake. If they couldn't prove that they could clean up a small amount of oil out of a fresh water lake, they couldn't clean up an oil spill in the ocean among the ice. (Barrow active harvester. SRB&A Interview 2007) 3. Noise is disrupting and displacing caribou, whales and other wildlife, resulting in hunters having to go longer distances at greater expense and risk. Of particular concern are helicopters, small aircraft, marine vessels, and seismic testing. Active harvesters in Nuiqsut, Barrow, Wainwright, and Atqasuk cited 179 personal experiences with disruption or displacement of subsistence resources by noise. Active harvesters in Barrow and Nuiqsut are most likely to cite personal experiences with noise- related disruptions of subsistence resources. ii NSB Oil and Gas Impacts July 09 We're getting to go further and further to catch caribou. Because their route has changed. They're not in our backyard. Now I have to go to other communities' backyards, like Anaktuvuk, Atqasuk and Barrow. [For] caribou you have to go out further because of seismic testing, helicopters, small aircraft. They'll be flying those choppers again. They'll be doing it soon when they gather information like when the ice goes out or when they haul their contractors out. This scares the caribou. What happens when the belt breaks on your snow machine? I walked ten hours home once. (Nuiqsut active harvester. SRB&A Interview 2007) Most of the people who can hunt have to work. If the hunting is 50 miles out, I will not go. Even if there is an agreement between the workers and the employers. If the animals are too far out, people will not go. They have to worry about the job that puts food on the table [i.e., provides necessary income to support hunting]. (Wainwright active harvester. SRB&A Interview 2007) We had an accident where we lost one of the whalers. We were out pretty far and the seas were pretty rough. This was increased risk, but naturally whaling is a dangerous event. This is where safety becomes an issue. Whenever we have to travel further it's more dangerous. The seas can change. The environment is very harsh. (Barrow active harvester. SRB&A Interview 2007) We use the skin from a bearded seal to make our whaling boats and mukluks. And where there is offshore seismic exploration, the bearded seal is not around.

Load more

  377

Copy Link