Date post: | 20-Jun-2015 |
Category: |
Self Improvement |
Upload: | huong-eva |
View: | 544 times |
Download: | 0 times |
24 September 2012
Adelaide Group 2:
THIEN HUONG Do
MINH THUAN Nguyen
THI TAM Duong
OUTLINE 1. Executive summary 2. Summary of Decisions 3. Description of Context 4. Stakeholder Analysis 5. Decision Criteria and Metrics 6. Data/Facts/Modelling 7. Analysis of Alternatives 8. Recommendations 9. Sensitivity Analysis
�Executive Summary�
• Background: The case represents the ANWR
dispute between natural resource development advocates and proponents of wilderness protection.
• Implication: The decision will have strong impact on consumers’ behaviours and reduce the oil consumption.
• Recommendations: Apply higher fuel efficiency standards
What solutions should be taken to reduce oil consumption?
Summary of Decisions We stand on the position of environmentalists
• Drilling Proponents: Took advantage of Policy
Window, capitalized on focusing events, called for drilling under the name of job creation and national defence
• Drilling Opponents: Highlighted the self-interest motives and disguided huge profits, re-estimated the economic and security values and the catastrophic ecological impact of oil development in the refuge.
• Congress: Integrated ANWR in legislation process
Description of Context 1980 1986 1987 1989 1990 1991 1995 1997 2003-2004 2005 2007
Congress enacted ANILCA which triggered the debate. GULF WAR
EIS was circulated by Interior Department
7 bills about ANWR development Approved ANWR oil and gas leasing bill
1st Energy Crisis
Revised estimate of finding oil in ANWR; October: prohibit drilling
Opening refuge is assumed
Artic Power has contract with Washington D.C
Two sides rely on experts’ analysis
President Obama approved an increase in CAFE standard 2nd Energy Crisis
Policy window: Approval of ANWR
Year of big events
Stakeholder Analysis Stakeholders Groups Representa2ves Goals
Drilling opponents • Alaska Coali*on • Environmental groups • Supporters/ Allies • Gwich’in Eskimos • Canadian government
• Conserve the wilderness of Alaska • Protect environment and wildlife
habitat
Drilling proponents • Oil and gas companies • Inupiat Eskimos • Lobbying organiza*ons • Auto industy • Electric U*li*es
• Earn more profit • Preserve na*onal security • Boost economy • Minimize oil reliance • New jobs crea*on • Ease federal deficit
Governments • State government • Interior Department • Congress
• Generate more revenue • Protect environment • Stabilize na*onal energy demand and
supply
Americans • American consumers • Low prices for oil and gas • Increase fuel efficiency • Support renewable energy
Decision Criteria and Metrics
Decision criteria Justifications Metrics
1.Environmental conservation
• Reserve the geographical diverse of ANWR
• Reduce the impacts from oil exploitation and side-effects on nature
• Number of acres • No. of wildlife animals • No. of affected trees and animals • Environmental indexes (air,
water…)
2. Economic development
• Creating jobs • Increase domestic oil production • Enhance national security
• No. of new jobs • Revenue streams • Contribution to federal/state
budget per year • Oil gallon produced per year • Oil gallon imported per year
3. Political dimensions
• Conservation of ANWR would please those who advocate environment
• Opening drilling would make those who support oil companies happy
• No. of Senates approved • No. of Senates disapproved
4. Public attitudes
• Americans’ interests towards environmental issues and oil consumption
• No. of public polls • Gallon of oil and gas consumed
yearly
(Our analysis based on the following indices of performance)
Data/Facts/Modelling We analyze the fact based on environmentalists' viewpoints. • P: Probability of
Alternatives • U: Utility Value of
Alternative • PnUn: Total sum of
multiple of utility value and probability of each alternative
The best option will have the highest utility values
Determine weight of factors for decision making
Environmental conservation
Economic development
Political dimensions
Public attitudes
Analysis of Alternatives Alternative 1: Apply higher fuel efficiency standards
o Reduce the total gas consumption
o Change consumers’ behaviour to energy consumption
Alternative 2: Invest in renewable energy technologies
o Reduce the oil reliance on foreigners
o Reduce the burden on domestic oil exploitation
Alternative 3: Mobilize public participation about
environment
o Based on the major events and proactive media involvement
MAUT Analysis Alternatives
p1 U1 p2 U2 p3 U3 p4 U4 PnWn
Environmentalists
1 0.95 1 0.4 0.6 0.5 1 0.8 0 1.99
2 0.95 0 0.4 1 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.44
3 0.95 0.8 0.4 0 0.5 0 0.8 1 1.56
Oil and gas industry
1 0.5 0 0.95 1 0.6 1 0.5 0 1.55
2 0.5 0.2 0.95 0.2 0.6 0 0.5 0.7 0.64
3 0.5 1 0.95 0 0.6 0.3 0.5 1 1.18
Politicians
1 0.5 1 0.5 0.7 0.95 1 0.7 0 1.8
2 0.5 0 0.5 1 0.95 0 0.7 0.4 0.78
3 0.5 0.2 0.5 0 0.95 0.5 0.7 1 1.275
Best possible alternative: Alternative 1 (Apply higher fuel efficiency standards)
Recommendations
• We should apply higher fuel efficiency standards
(Alternative 1)
– Prepare strong back up by reliable and scientific data
– Before employing the new fuel efficiency standards, surveys about
possible reaction should be carried out.
– Campaigns to educate/change consumer behaviours should be made a
national focus and intensively involve media.
– It also needs supports and commitment from different government
levels.
Sensitivity Analysis • Auto and Energy Industries might shake hand to fight against
unfavourable Industry standards (E.g: CAFE) • American may strongly oppose to the new requirement about
fuel efficiency. • The Utility Model based on the subjective approach from
environmentalists’ perspective. It may generate different results from others’ point of views.
• The recommendation may be challenged if not being backed up by scientific and reliable statistic data.
Thank you!