Alaska Risk Assessment Off To Slow Start

Alaska's oil pipelines and other infrastructure are falling apart at the seams, risking catastrophe for downstream village residents, wilderness areas and wild salmon runs. 

So when Governor Sarah Palin announced the state would do a $4 million Risk Assessment evaluating Alaska's oil pipelines and infrastructure, we were among those who cheered the move. The fact-based study was Palin's response to the 2006 Prudhoe Bay corrosion-caused shutdowns. The above-board approach was a welcome relief to the Murkowski-era bureaucratic response to our badly managed, leak-prone and aging system of pipelines.

Over a year into the study though and progress is underwhelming. Bureaucracy is moving, money is being spent and people are doing things, but tangible results have been elusive. The study design ensures that important risks will be ignored. Public involvement seems more geared to winning consent of stakeholders than reforming pipeline oversight. Conflicts of interest of the company hired to do the study could also undercut credibility. Ideally public involvement and transparency can fix these problems, and project leaders assure us that this will be done. All in all though, rubber has not yet met the road.

The Risk Analysis, if done right, will be a comprehensive audit of oil infrastructure that identifies the highest-risk areas and recommends strong protective measures. This is a great opportunity for interests to be considered and weighed by objective standards, rather than just by oil company book-keepers and lawyers. 

What is at stake? Consider that an oil spill from the TAPS could easily escape into one of our great rivers. I know that the Copper River is nakedly exposed for over 170 miles of pipeline. The Yukon is also exposed. Or consider the emerging disaster in NPR-A, where villagers in Nuiqsut are getting sick while gas flares run. With pipelines composed of leaky valves, rusted pipe, and cracked seals, rooted in unstable permafrost, all being run by glitch-prone computers programmed by cost-cutting oil companies, the risks need a hard look.

The primary accomplishment to date though is granting a $4 million contract to a private company to do the study. The selection of a Doyon subsidiary raises eyebrows because they are a major contractor on thevery  pipelines and wells being evaluated. The conflict of interest is obvious. The state's press release touts the fact that Doyon is an Alaska company, showing shades of the cronyism and insider-dealing that has gotten previous administrations in trouble. 

On the other hand, Doyon does have a professional, experienced staff, and certainly has the where-with-all and know-how to tackle the technically complex tasks. There are good, smart people on the job, and it would be wonderful to see them prove the critics wrong. 

The biggest limitation of the study are the  blinders put on by the State's criteria excluding risks of security/ terrorism, and marine transportation. Yet past risk anlyses have found that marine transportation is the most dangerous link in the oil transportation chain, and that terrorism/sabotage is one of the most risky aspects of pipelines. Coincidentally, Doyon also holds security contracts on pipelines.

The public meeting schedule has just been released, and I encourage everyone to get involved. Subsistence hunters and fishers, users, commercial fishermen, Bush Alaskans, oilfield workers and wilderness lovers all have a big stake in this. If you can't make a public hearing, comments can be submitted on the project website. Stakeholder involvement is the indispensable remedy to the complacence and conflicts of interest inherent in the bureaucracy and corporation-run study. If we all work together, we can get this done right. Hearing Dates are:

September 25—Fairbanks

October 1—Kenai

October 15—Anchorage

October 16—Valdez

October 22—Barrow

Hope to see you there!