Advertisement

Decisions with Multiple Environmental Objectives. The Siting of Oil Drilling Wells in Norway

  • Knut L. Seip
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 29)

Abstract

This multiattribute analysis shows how “the seven steps of decision analysis” is applied to the siting of oil drilling wells in Northern Norway. The study includes an assessment of the frequency of accidents (oil blow-out), calculation of risks under uncertainty, (oil-drift modelling under variable sea-state conditions), consequence analysis (impacts on shores), and utility analysis, (preferences for natural resources). Results of the study show that exploratory oil drilling in the eastern off-shore waters north of the counties Troms and Finnmark (>200 km from the coast) gives the least expected oil pollution damage. Compared to this location, drilling in the western, offshore parts would require an extra willingness to pay (WTP) of 70 mill NOK (10 mill USD). Drilling closer to the shore (≈20 km from the coast) requires an extra WTP of 400 to 500 mill NOK (80 mill USD).

Keywords

Weather Type Drilling Site Dead Bird NATO Advance Study Institute Multiattribute Utility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. Bentcover, J. D., V. T. Covello and J. Mumpower. 1986. Benefits assessments. The state of the art. Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishin Company.Google Scholar
  2. Berne, S., M. Marchand and L. Dózonville. 1980. Pollution of sea-water and marine sediments in coastal areas. Ambio. 9: 287–294.Google Scholar
  3. Broman, D. and C. Lindblad. 1980. Biological effects of hot water cleaning. Effects on flora and fauna in the Stockholm arcipelag. University of Stockholm, Stockholm (In Swedish)Google Scholar
  4. Brown, G. M., R. Congar and E. A. Wilman. 1983. Recreation: Tourist and residents. Assessing the social costs of oil spill. The Amoco Cadiz case study. Springfield, U.S. Department of commerce.Google Scholar
  5. CBS. 1983a. County survey for Troms. Norwegian Bureau of Statistics, OsloGoogle Scholar
  6. CBS. 1983b. County survey of Finnmark. Norwegian Bureau of Statistics, OsloGoogle Scholar
  7. CBS. 1983c. Recreation in Norway. Norwegian Bureau of Statistics, OsloGoogle Scholar
  8. CBS. 1985. Outdoor life survey 1984. Norwegian Bureau of Statistics, OsloGoogle Scholar
  9. Congar, R. 1982. A chronological analysis of the cost of controlling pollution from the Amoco Cadiz oil spill. Finistere, 1978. The cost of oil spills. OECD, Paris pp.105–111.Google Scholar
  10. Dahle, E. A. 1988. Estimates for the frequencies and size distributions of various oil spills along the Norwegian coast in 1988 and 1990 with Sture and Mongstad developed. Det Norske Veritas. Hovik, Norway.Google Scholar
  11. Elven, R. and V. Johansen. 1983. Shores in Finnmark- flora, vegetation and botanical value. Environmental directorate, Oslo.Google Scholar
  12. Ford, R. G., J. A. Wiens, D. Heineman and G. L. Hunt. 1982. Modelling the sensitivity of colonial breeding marine birds to oil spills: Guillemot and kittiwake populations on the Pribilof islands, Beering sea. J. Applied Ecology. 19: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fredrikson, G. W., H. Ibrekk, K. I. Johannessen, K. Kveseth, K. L. Seip, H. M. Seip and F. Wenst0p. 1982. Oil spill combat: Damage assessment using multiattribute utility analysis. Center for industrial research. Oslo.Google Scholar
  14. Ganoulis, J. 1991. Risk in coastal pollution. NATO advanced study institute. Chalkidiki, Greece.Google Scholar
  15. Ganning, B. and U. Billing. 1974. Effects on community metabolism of oil and hemically dispersed oil on Baltic bladder wrack Fucus vesiculosus. Ecological aspects of the toxicity testing of oils and dispersants. England, Appl. Sci. Publ. Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Gottschalk, P. and F. Wenst0p. 1990. Quantitative decision analysis for managers. Pro & Con. Norwegian school of management. Sandvika, Norway.Google Scholar
  17. Gundlach, E. R., P. D. Boehm, M. Marchand, R. M. Atlas, D. M. Ward and D. A. Wolfe. 1983. The fate of Amoco Cadiz oil. Science. 221: 122–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gundlach, E. R. and M. Reed. 1985. Quantification of oil deposition and removal rates for a shoreline/oil spill interaction model. 6th Arctic marine oil spill program (AMOP) Technical seminar, pp. 65–76.Google Scholar
  19. Haimes, Y.Y. 1991. Total risk management. Lecture notes. NATO advanced study institute. Chalkidiki, Greece.Google Scholar
  20. Hansen, E. K. 1989. Matematisk modell for drift og ilandskylling av olje. University of Oslo. MA Thesis.Google Scholar
  21. Hem, K.-G. and K. L. Seip. 1990. Valuation and ranging of pollution abatement efforts. VANN. 1: 50–61.Google Scholar
  22. Johansen, Ø. 1988. Oil drift in the Barents sea. Drift trajectories. OCEANOR, Trondheim.Google Scholar
  23. Keeney, R. and H. Raiffa. 1976. Decisions with multiple objectives. New York, John Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Le Campion-Alsumard, T. and M. R. Plante-Cuny. 1982. Etydes micrcbiologiques et microphysiques dans les sediments des marais maritimes delíle Grande a la suite de la pollution par lÁmoco Cadiz. Ecological study of the Amoco Cadiz oil spill. NOAA-CNEXO joint scientific commission. US Department of commerse.Google Scholar
  25. Melzian, B.D. and J. Lake. 1987. Accumulation and retention of No.2 fuel oil compounds in the blue crab Callinecter sapidus Rathbun. Oil and Chemical Poll. 3: 367–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ogata, M., Y. Miyake and K. Fujisawa. 1987. Oil smell and oil components in fish flesh reared in seawater containing heavy oil. Oil and chemical pollution. 3: 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Plate, E.J. 1991. Probabilistic modeling of water quality in rivers. NATO advanced study institute. Chalkidiki, Greece. (This volume)Google Scholar
  28. Reed, M., D. French, T. Grigalunas and J. Opaluch. 1989. Overview of a natural resource damage assessment model system for coastal and marine environments, oil and chemical pollution. 5: 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seip, K.L. 1983. Mathematical models of the rocky shore ecosystem. Application of ecological modelling in environmental management. Part B. Elsevier. pp. 341–443.Google Scholar
  30. Seip, K. L. 1991. Preferences for marine resources in Norway. Manuscript. Center for industrial research. Blindern, OsloGoogle Scholar
  31. Seip, K. L., K. A. Brekke, K. Kveseth and H. Ibrekk. 1987. Models for calculating oil spill damages to shores. Oil and Chemical pollution 3:69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seip, K. L., H. Ibrekk and F. Wenstop. 1987. Multiattribute analysis of the impact on society of phosphorus abatement measures. Water Resources Research. 23: 755–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Seip, K. L., E. Sandersen, F. Mehlum and J. Ryssdal. 1991. Damages to seabirds from oil spills: comparing simulation results and vulnerability indexes. Ecol Modelling. 52: 39–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sveum, P. and C. Bech. 1990. Oil spill on Arctic shoreline sediments. SINTEF Group. TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  35. Weber, E., F. Eisenfiihr and D. von Winterfeldt. 1988. The effects of splitting attributes on weights in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Science. 34: 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Westergaard, R. 1987. All about blowout., Norwegian oil review. Oslo.Google Scholar
  37. Woldt, W., Bogardi, I, and L. Duckstein. Consideration of reliability in system designs for groundwater remediation. NATO advanced study institute. Chalkidiki, Greece. (This volume).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Knut L. Seip
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for industrial researchOslo 3Norway

Personalised recommendations