Return to story

Commonwealth of energy WARNING: 'STEALTH SCIENCE' MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO OUR DECISIONS

March 8, 2009 12:36 am

GLOUCESTER POINT

In 2006, Virginia's General Assembly made a policy decision to "support federal efforts to determine the extent of natural gas resources 50 miles or more off the Atlantic shoreline." Based on this decision, the federal Minerals Management Service included a portion of Virginia's outer continental shelf in its lease-sale process for oil and gas resources.

The questions following from these actions provide an instructive case for defining the role of science in policy, and for clarifying how scientists can contribute to making informed decisions in a democratic, pluralistic society.

The bottom line is that effectively answering the questions surrounding offshore exploration requires "honest brokers" who are able to provide unbiased scientific information, and, just as importantly, to help clarify the policy options that are available.

QUESTIONS NEED ANSWERS

The questions are as complex and numerous as the steps required to transform sea-bottom hydrocarbons into saleable fuels:

What is the extent of recoverable reserves within the Virginia lease-sale area? (This pie-shaped area of 2.9 mil-lion acres extends from 50 to 180 miles offshore, in water depths from 120 to 11,000 feet.) How might the seismic surveys needed to delineate reserves affect marine mammals?

How might production platforms impact the marine environment during construction or operation? Would they pose a hazard to navigation? Could they survive a hurricane? Would they mar the view of boaters? (At 50 miles out they would be invisible from shore.)

What are the probable environmental impacts of pipelines that would most likely carry gas or oil to shore? Should they rest on the sea floor or be buried? Pipelines could affect bottom-dwelling organisms, and might conflict with submarine communications cables, both commercial and military. Other potential conflicts involve interactions with commercial fishing gear, archaeological resources, and unexploded ordinance.

Offshore drilling also raises concerns onshore. Where should a pipeline make landfall? Landfall on marsh, beach, dunes, or bluffs would each pose different environmental consequences. How about sea-level rise? What onshore structures are required for refining or processing? How could the pipeline and associated infrastructure be secured? Where might the offshore work force live?

What's immediately obvious from this lengthy (but far from comprehensive) list is that these questions range from those that can be addressed by science (e.g., the environmental effects of pipeline construction), by industry (the extent of recoverable reserves), and by societal and personal values: What's more important--tourism, energy security, fishing, jobs, an unobstructed horizon, or an untrammeled seaside marsh and the ecosystem services that it provides?

IDEALIZED SCIENTISTS

Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado, provides a useful framework for considering the options available to scientists and policymakers in the context of this facts-to-values continuum. He categorizes scientists into four idealized roles:

The "Pure Scientist" seeks to focus on facts and has no interaction with decision-makers. For example, a researcher might publish an article detailing the seasonal distribution of whales and dolphins on the continental shelf, with no reference to the possible effects of seismic surveys on "echolocation" by these animals.

The "Science Arbiter" answers specific factual questions posed by the decision-maker. In the debate on offshore drilling, a researcher might report the effects of drilling mud on the bottom-dwelling community beneath an oil rig, or the use of offshore rigs as habitat by open-water fishes.

The "Issue Advocate" seeks to reduce the scope of choice available to the decision-maker. A scientist might argue for or against bringing a pipeline ashore in a certain area, based on judicious analysis of available data.

OBJECTIVITY, PLEASE

The "Honest Broker" seeks to provide unbiased advice pro or con, and to clarify the scope of policy options available to the decision maker. He would objectively weigh the environmental risks and benefits of offshore gas exploration, likely in the broader context of offshore renewables, including wind, tides, and waves. This analysis might consider cumulative environmental impacts from future lease sales in neighboring states, and the climate-change impacts of consuming additional fossil fuels.

Because the honest-broker role is particularly appropriate in debates where the science is uncertain and values are central, it must be an important part of any debate on offshore energy.

Fortunately, federal and state regulations and actions do acknowledge and encourage the honest-broker role. An example is the December 2008 workshop hosted by the Minerals Management Service and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. During the workshop, part of the environmental impact process required by the National Environmental Policy Act, participants identified unanswered questions regarding offshore exploration and drilling. VIMS scientists will address these questions through continued field studies off Virginia and analyses of lessons learned in the Gulf of Mexico, where offshore drilling has been ongoing since 1954.

The importance of honest brokers is heightened when we consider the many value-based considerations inherent to the debate on offshore drilling. These encourage what Pielke calls "stealth issue advocates," individuals or groups that cloak a value-based position behind a facade of unbiased science.

In this light, the use of unbiased science to inform decisions on offshore energy resources--through additional scientific studies and the Environmental Impact process--is anything but burdensome government regulation. It is the best way to ensure the wisest, most rational decision.