On the first day of the conference, social scientists from each of the three regions (Jim Lima, Pacific Region; Michael Baffrey and Tim Holder, Alaska Region; Harry Luton and Claudia Rogers, Gulf of Mexico Region) gave presentations to a plenary session in which they described the studies programs in their regions and previewed some of the issues they hoped to address in smaller working sessions the following day. In addition, social scientists from outside the agency made presentations on both theoretical and applied work on topics of interest to the MMS socioeconomic studies program. Harvey Molotch (University of California, Santa Barbara) spoke on “Oil and the California Mix”, describing the findings of a comparative study of the influence of oil development in three coastal California counties. His research illustrated how, while the volume and pace of oil extraction were similar, differences in local institutions in the three counties led to strikingly different consequences that, in turn, accentuated local social, political and economic differences. He emphasized the role local community organizations had played in this process. Steve Picou (University of South Alabama) delivered a presentation entitled “Theoretical Trends in Environmental Sociology: Implications for Resource Management in the Modern World.” Recent theoretical understanding, Picou argued, supports resource management strategies that are more flexible, participatory and democratic. Such strategies should: (1) take account of “culturally-based knowledge systems” in risk assessment studies; (2) cultivate “new combinations of government, corporate and voluntary organizations in the policy sector;” (3) “recognize the uncertainty of science in the public construction of risk;” and, (4) “reconstruct” trust in relationships between resource managers and the public.

Mark Shrimpton (Community Resource Services, Ltd.) and Keith Story (University of Newfoundland) spoke on “Community Impacts: Adding Value to Analysis and Management”, questioning the emphasis social impact research and management often place on comparative studies and impact prediction. Planning regarding impacts, they held, often fails to appreciate the many differences among communities and the impact of differences in the kind or phase of oil and gas development in question. They also emphasized what they regarded as the unavoidable inaccuracy of importance predictions. While it is necessary to specify impact management objectives, they argued, the inherent uncertainty involved makes it imperative to build great flexibility into management plans. Glenn Sheehan (Ukpeagvaik Inupiat Corporation) called his presentation "‘Hearing’ the People of a Subsistence Culture: Traditional Knowledge and Environmental Impacts on the North Slope.” Western science, he observed, often has discounted Native Alaskan’s knowledge of their environment, even though its efficacy has been apparent in the ability to survive in a harsh environment. Sheehan emphasized that Native Alaskan traditional knowledge was not static. Rather, it was a living body of knowledge, constantly tested and refined. The scientific utility of such knowledge and its centrality in change brought on by oil and gas development, as well as simple justice, he argued, dictate that we listen more closely. For the benefit of both agency personnel and non-agency researchers, the MMS liaison with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), JoAnn Lauterbach, addressed the plenary session on the process of obtaining OMB approval for proposed research using survey methods. (Written versions of these presentations appear in Appendix A.)

The second day of the conference was devoted to concurrent small-group discussions. While a systematic review of the accomplishments of the studies program was not possible, session participants drew on their varied and extensive experience with OCS-related socioeconomic issues and MMS-sponsored research to consider the challenges the program faces, discuss issues posed by the session leaders and identify topics for the program’s attention. The small-group session leaders summarized the results of these discussions for the plenary session on the third and final day of the conference and members of the program’s Scientific Committee in attendance presented their own recommendations on the course of the studies program in light of the preceding days’ deliberations.