|
"I was going to title this one 'Where’s Waldo?’” Ian Scott said as a large colour photograph appeared on the screen beside him.
The representative from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers watched an audience packed with fellow delegates from industry, government, First Nations and NGOs strain to discern some telltale mark on a landscape where Devon Energy had cut a seismic line.
Nothing.
“You need to talk to Devon, because I’m not sure where it is,” Scott admitted.
The use of low-impact seismic techniques was just one of many advances highlighted in presentations at the recent Northern Oil and Gas Best Management Practices Symposium in Whitehorse. But this subject had a particular relevance to a Yukon oil and gas industry that is still focused primarily on exploration and eager to minimize the environmental impacts or “footprint” of related activities.
For years, exploration companies have relied on seismic programs to help locate oil and gas reserves. They cut or thin brush through forested areas to lay out access lines that allow them to survey the subsurface geology using shock wave reflections. In the past, landscapes with high potential were extensively disturbed by the construction of wide, unsightly lines that could disrupt natural habitats—with potentially negative consequences for resident wildlife. This is no longer the case.
“We’ve seen significant innovation, particularly in the seismic sector,” Scott observed of the newest practices adopted by industry members like Devon, which embraced minimal impact exploration techniques to reduce the footprint of its seismic activities in Yukon’s Eagle Plains and Kotaneelee regions.
In many ways, the changes begin with attitude. Companies now routinely incorporate environmental principles, public concerns, and local and traditional values into any program. They also recognize that while seismic lines may be necessary, additional disturbances related to their construction can be limited. For example, many companies rely on air rather than ground access into new areas, utilize biodegradable materials, employ biologists to monitor wildlife, and train workers to avoid important habitat features.
But, arguably, the most dramatic changes have been in the size of the lines. Exploration companies have taken advantage of modern technology to make huge strides towards smaller lines. Today, they use aerial photography, LIDAR (Light Detection & Ranging) images, and global-positioning systems—often combined with extensive ground scouting supported by local knowledge—to avoid timber as much as possible.
|
|
The result: less cutting, more trimming. The use of mulchers, as opposed to bulldozers, has also reduced the width of lines and the erosion of underlying soils. In fact, companies now target widths as low as 1.75 meters—a far cry from conventional widths of 5 meters or more—and can credibly claim that some seismic surveys leave virtually no lasting traces.
In another symposium presentation, biologist Craig Machtans of the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) in Yellowknife offered a “bird’s-eye” view of what’s at stake in such innovations. He discussed how uncertainty about the impacts of seismic lines on songbirds prompted him to undertake a two-year study in the southwestern NWT.
“There were no huge effects of seismic lines on birds, which was a little bit of a surprise,” he said. “But there were subtle effects on birds and they basically had to increase the size of their territory.”
Machtans noted that the body of evidence indicates that many—but not all—birds can incorporate lines of around six to eight meters into their territories. However, there are still some important unknowns, including the effects on breeding success.
So, what does this tell industry?
“There’s a good biological reason to continue pushing for narrower lines and using best practices for seismic rather than just kind of continuing to do things the old way,” Machtans suggested.
Based on Ian Scott’s comments, industry will do exactly that—especially when best practices for seismic and other aspects of development have proven successful at reducing costs as well as footprints.
“If we look at the issue of innovative practices to reduce the footprint, I think there are a number of concepts that need to be addressed,” he said. “And I think the oil and gas industry has demonstrated this, but there are always ways that we can do things better…. I think it’s important to embrace what we hear and learn.”
Certainly, his point wasn’t lost on the symposium’s local delegates. As the Yukon Government continues to promote oil and gas development while considering the protection of wildlife as well as ecological, traditional and cultural values, there’s a great opportunity to evolve a model based on the best practices that an entire industry has refined over many years. The recent symposium was yet another important step in that direction.
Part of a series on the Yukon Oil and Gas Industry. Submitted by the Department of Energy, Mines & Resources.
|
Last Updated 16-09-2005
