The Ecological Footprint of Oil Production and Sustainability€¦ · Petrozuata Ameriven Cerro...
Transcript of The Ecological Footprint of Oil Production and Sustainability€¦ · Petrozuata Ameriven Cerro...
-
The Ecological Footprint of Oil Production and Sustainability
Chris W Baynard, PhDUniversity of North Florida
ESRI Petroleum User Group ConferenceHouston, TexasFeb 23, 2009
-
Measuring Environmental Performance: some examples
• Internal CSR Reports– Environmental Performance section
• International Organization for Standardization–ISO 14031
• Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)• International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA)
• American Petroleum Institute (API)• Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI)• Ecological Footprint (EF) index
-
Ecological Footprint
• Simple measure of demand for natural resources.• Quantifies amount of productive land required to support human consumption patterns, as well as the wastes generated.
• Considers “how much of the regenerative biological capacity of the planet is demanded by a given human activity.”
• Unit of analysis: land area– in hectares per capita.(Ewers and Smith 2007; ESI 2005; Kitzes et al. 2009, 813, Siche et al. 2008).
-
Limits to ecological footprint
• Spatial scale is too large (global hectares).• Does not account for habitat fragmentation and loss of biodiversity resulting from specific extractive operations.
• Difficult to measure company performance on a concession basis.
• Excludes the use of GIS and remote sensing in its methodology.
-
Research Question?
• How can we use geospatial technologies to quantify and rank the ecological footprint created by E&P activities at the landscape level?
• E.g. Sara Tyler‐ Shell WindEnergy: site screening methodology 2009 PUG Plenary Session. But in this case instead of site selection, use GIS and RS to measure existing alterations.
-
Alternative?Landscape‐level Ecological Footprint
(LEF)• Based on landscape ecology metrics.• Uses GIS and satellite imagery.• Quantitative, objective, replicable.• New index for companies and 3rd parties to monitor ecological footprint remotely.
-
Case Study: Venezuela’s Heavy Oil Belt (HOB)
SincorPetrozuataAmerivenCerro Negro
-
SINCORPDVSA 38%Total (France) 47%
Statoil (Norway) 15%
PETROZUATAPDVSA 49.9%
ConocoPhillips 50.1%
AMERIVENPDVSA 30%Chevron 30%
ConocoPhillips 40%
CERRO NEGROPDVSA 41.67% ExxonMobil 41.67% BP (United Kingdom) 16.66%
Heavy Oil Belt as of 2005
-
HOB FiguresSincor Petrozuata Ameriven Cerro Negro
Syncrude Production and Upgraded Quality
180,000 b/d 104,000 b/d 190,000 b/d 105,000 b/d
From 8.5º to 32ºAPI
From 9º to 19-25º API
From 7-10º to 26º API
From 6º-10ºto 16º API
Congressional Authorization 1993 1993 1997 1997
Early Production 2001 1999 2002 1999Full Production (Upgrader Start-up)
Mar-02 Jan-01 Oct-04 Aug-01
Sources: Petroguía., 2006-2007; Talwani, M., 2002; Mommer, B., 2004; Gipson et al., 2002; Chevron, 2008.
-
Methods (LEF)1. Change Detection: NDVI Image Differencing (ERDAS Imagine
9.2)
A. Red=negative vegetation change—loss
B. Green= positive change– gain
C. Black= small/no difference
2. Infrastructure Density: (ESRI ArcInfo 9.2)
A. Petroscape
B. Nonpetroscape
3. Edge‐Effect Zone
4. Core Areas
5. Number of Rivers Crossed
-
Change Detection: Sincor 1990‐2000
Hectares_Decrease 9,002 (15%)Hectares_Increase 4,957 (8.2%)Total_Hectares 60,405
-
Change Detection: Petrozuata 1990‐2000
Hectares_Decrease 7,108 (13%)Hectares_Increase 3,802 (7%)Total_Hectares 54,714
-
Change Detection: Ameriven 1990‐2000
Hectares_Decrease 32,385 (47%)Hectares_Increase 232 (.33%)Total_Hectares 69,536
-
Petroscape Density Sincor: 1990, 2000, 2005
.19 km .47 km
.58 km
-
Petroscape Density Petrozuata: 1990, 2000, 2005
.17 km
1.13 km
.95 km
-
Petroscape Density Ameriven: 1990, 2000, 2005
.04km
.18km
.03km
-
Petroscape Density Cerro Negro: 1990, 2000, 2005
.01 km
.39 km
.31 km
-
Edge‐Effect Zones: Sincor 1990, 2000, 2005
113.1 km2
271.57km2
230.75 km2
-
Edge‐Effect Zones: Petrozuata 1990, 2000, 2005
59.45 km2
222.49 km2
194.79 km2
-
Edge‐Effect Zones: Ameriven 1990, 2000, 2005
38.43 km2
30.16 km2
117.07 km2
-
Edge‐Effect Zones: Cerro Negro 1990, 2000, 2005
36.83 km2
101.63 km2
115.85 km2
-
Core‐Areas Sincor 1990, 2000, 2005
404.28 km2
286.63 km2
245.8 km2
-
Core‐Areas Petrozuata 1990, 2000, 2005
241.32 km2 105.98
km2
78.29 km2
-
Core‐Areas Ameriven 1990, 2000, 2005
627 km2 635.27 km2
548.37 km2
-
Core‐Areas Cerro Negro 1990, 2000, 2005
266.32 km2 187.30 km2
201.52 km2
-
Rivers Crossed Sincor: 1990, 2000, 2005
515
53
-
Rivers Crossed Petrozuata: 1990, 2000, 2005
0 18
26
-
Rivers Crossed Ameriven: 1990, 2000, 2005
0 0
1
-
Rivers Crossed Cerro Negro: 1990, 2000, 2005
00
0
0
0
-
Results: Full Production 2005lower # = better score; *= inverted score
SINCOR PETROZUATA AMERIVEN CERRO NEGRO RANK
NEG VEG CHANGE % 2000
15% 13% 47% n/a Petrozuata 1Sincor 2Ameriven 3
POS VEGCHANGE % 2000*
5.2% 7% .33% n/a Petrozuata 1Sincor 2Ameriven 3
PETROSCAPE DENSITY
.58 km2 1.13 km2 .18 km2 .39 km2 Ameriven 1Cerro Negro 2Sincor 3Petrozuata 4
EDGE‐EFFECT 271.57 km2 222.49 km 2 117.07 km2 101.63 km2 Cerro Negro 1Ameriven 2Petrozuata 3Sincor 4
CORE‐AREAS* 245.8 km2 78.29 km2 548.37 km2 201.52 km2 Ameriven 1Sincor 2Cerro Negro 3Petrozuata 4
# RIVERS CROSSED
53 26 1 0 Cerro Negro 1Ameriven 2Petrozuata 3Sincor 4
-
Final Rank 2005
SINCOR PETROZUATA AMERIVEN CERRO NEGRO
Total 13 14 6 7
Rank 1‐4 3 4 1 2
Company Participation
NOC 38%Total 47%Statoil 15%
NOC 49.9%ConocoPhillips 50.1%
NOC 30%Chevron 30%ConocoPhillips 40%
NOC 41.67% ExxonMobil 41.67% BP 16.66%
-
What is the business case?
• Saves money, lowers reclamation costs, reduce infrastructure building expenses, limit illegal settlements.
• Avoids negative publicity, fines, litigation• Attracts green investors/customers, employees.
• Competitive advantage (compare env best practices; include in sustainability reporting).
Sources: Morhardt 2002; Morhardt et al. 2002; Diamond 2005; Lawrence 2007; Anderson 1994; Orlitzky et al. 2003; Kakadabase 2007; Dashwood 2007; Reinhardt 2000; Shapiro 2000)
-
Challenges with LEF
• Requires skilled personnel• Requires satellite data• Distinguishing petro from nonpetroscape (and other economic activities)
• Lacks field visit data (ground truthing, training samples)
-
Advantages of LEF
• Systematic• In house/third party (eventually web‐based services)
• Replicable• Provides an index to measure performance yearly (room for improvement)
• Site specific, but can be averaged
-
Now is the time to use presented methods to conduct baseline studies, plan, and monitor subsequent E&P development.
-
Implications/Future Research
• Create geoprocessing model/ArcGIS Explorer (suggested by Peter Becker: ESRI)
• Weight/refine variables• Model different density scenarios• Cross‐country comparison• Quantify and rank other extractive industries• Investigate business culture/management decision‐making to help explain observed variations
-
References
• Anderson, L. E. 1994. The Political Ecology of the Modern Peasant: Calculation and Community. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
• Chevron, 2008. Venezuela Fact Sheet. http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf/venezuelafactsheet.pdf
• Dashwood, H. S., 2007. Canadian mining companies and corporate social responsibility: weighing the impact of global norms. Canadian Journal of Political Science 40 (1), 129‐156.
• Diamond, J., 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Viking, New York.
• ESI. 2005. 2005 environmental sustainability index: benchmarking national environmental stewardship. Appendix F comparing the ESI with other sustainability indicators. CIESIN and YCELP. http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/esi/f_comparing.pdf
-
References cont.
• Ewers, R. M., Smith, R. J. 2007. Choice of index determines relationship between corruption and environmental sustainability. Ecology and Society 12(1):r2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/resp2
• Gipson, L. J., Owen, R., Robertson, C. R., 2002. Hamaca heavy oil project: lessons learned and an evolving development strategy. Society ofPetroleum Engineers 78990, 1‐9.
• Kakabadse, A. P., 2007. Being responsible: boards are reexamining the bottom line. Leadership in Action 27 (1), 2‐6.
• Kitzes, J., Wackernagel, M. 2009. Answers to common questions inecological footprint accounting. Ecological Indicators. 9 (4). 812‐817.
• Lawrence, R., 2007. Corporate social responsibility, supply‐chains and Saami claims: tracing the political in the Finnish forestry industry. Geographical Research 45 (2), 167‐176.
-
References cont.
• Mommer, B., 2004. The value of extra‐heavy crude oil from the Orinoco belt. Venezuelan Ministry of Energy and Mines. http://www.soberania.org/Archivos/doktor_mommer_orimulsion.pdf .
• Morhardt, J. E., 2002. Clean, Green, and Read All Over: Ten Rules for Effective Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting. ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
• Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S., Freeman, K., 2002. Scoring corporateenvironmental and sustainability reports using GRI 2000, ISO 14031, and other criteria. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 9, 215‐233.
• Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., Rynes, S. L., 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: a meta‐analysis. Organization Studies 24 (3), 403‐441.
-
References cont.• Petroguía., 2006‐2007. Energy map of Venezuela. Editorial Los Barrosos,
Caracas, Venezuela.• Reinhardt, F. L., 2000. Bringing the environment down to earth. In: Harvard
Business Review: on Business and the Environment. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
• Siche, J. R., Agostinho, F., Ortega, E., Romeiro, A. 2008. Sustainability of nations by indices: comparative study between environmental sustainability index, ecological footprint and the emergy performance indices. Ecological economics 66. 628‐637.
• Shapiro, R. B. 2000. Cited in: Magretta, J. Growth through global sustainability: an interview with Monsanto’s CEO, Robert B. Shapiro. In: Harvard Business Review: on Business and the Environment. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
• Talwani, M., 2002. The Orinoco heavy oil belt in Venezuela: Or heavy oil to the rescue? Rice University Department of Earth Science, Houston, TX. http://cohesion.rice.edu/naturalsciences/earthscience/research.cfm?doc_id=2819
-
Questions?
Chris W. Baynard, PhD
Dept of Economics & Geography
Coggin College of Business
University of North Florida