RIASSUNTO
Abstract
Oil companies seeking to access new regions are often confronted by communities and governments that know little about the petroleum industry, its activities and their impacts. Their expectations are commonly based on stereotypes that are problematic, not least because various factors lead to an emphasis on negative impacts, rather than a balanced picture of potential costs and benefits. From a petroleum industry perspective, this can increase the costs of having exploration and development programs approved and implemented, and it may result in arduous conditions and even moratoria on activity. From the perspective of local communities, employment, business and other benefits may be delayed or foregone. These misconceptions are best countered through collaborative processes that educate about the industry, its activities, their effects, and how they can be managed. While these processes should use information about the impacts of upstream petroleum activity in other regions, such comparative study must be undertaken with care if it is to address, rather than reinforce, negative expectations.
Introduction
Especially in frontier regions, prospective upstream petroleum activity is commonly seen as threatening community wellbeing. As is now the case with many types of resource development activity, it is often expected to cause such things as inflation, social disruption and damage to traditional industries and the environment, while benefiting few local people and companies. It is commonly also thought that the exploitation of this non-renewable resource will be of limited duration and leave a negative social, economic and biophysical legacy.
As a consequence, oil companies seeking to access new regions are often confronted by communities and governments that are largely reactive, trying to stop activity or limit its anticipated negative effects, while hoping to get some share of any economic benefits. Based on first-hand experience with offshore petroleum activity and mining, smelter and hydro-electric projects in various parts of the world, this paper explores these expectations and responses, and discusses how they can be addressed.
The next section describes some common community misconceptions about the offshore petroleum industry and its effects, based largely on the author's recent experience in British Columbia. Its offshore has been under exploration moratoria since 1959, and government interest in lifting them has generated strong objections from environmental, aboriginal and community groups. The paper then discusses the consequences these misconceptions have for the petroleum industry and coastal communities. Lastly, it discusses the ways in which such misconceptions can be prevented and addressed, focusing on collaborative education processes. This includes discussion of the merits and dangers of seeking to learn by studying the impacts of upstream petroleum activity in other regions.
Community Expectations
Experience in a number of frontier regions, including Atlantic Canada, the Faroe Islands, the Falkland Islands and, most recently, British Columbia, indicates that there are some common misconceptions about the offshore petroleum industry, its activities, and their effects. Some of these are described below, with an emphasis on those related to socio-economic effects, given the author's interests. In each case, the expectations are most common during the early days of interaction between the industry and a region, with there being an improvement over time as a result of experience and education.
Innovation and Technological Density: It is common to view the petroleum industry as being an old, polluting, resource extraction industry, and not one that is technologically intensive and innovative. This was reflected recently in Atlantic Canada, with the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council arguing that the government and others concerned with regional economic development should not be overly focused on the rapidly growing offshore petroleum industry, and instead pay greater attention to the knowledge economy. This reflects a lack of awareness of the fact that work in challenging natural and business environments requires the development of new solutions, and that, as in Atlantic Canada, this can have major spin-off benefits for the local academic, government and private-sector research and development community.1