TsengDebatePaper2

Drill! Baby, Drill? --- ANWR Drilling, a Debate Paper It all comes down to the decision between risk and potential, present and future. “Virtually all human being discounted future.” Jeremy Bulow pointed it out in his paper on “Planned Obsolescence” and this is exactly the question we face today during the much heated debate of drilling in ANWR. Do we put human’s present value first, or do we prioritize a collective future of every living organism? This paper is going to go through the pros and cons of the drilling through the potential economical value and environmental threats it might possess. Affirmative: According to former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, “Of the 20 million acres (81,000 km2) up there, we're looking at 2,000 acres (8.1 km2) as a footprint, smaller than LAX. With new technology, with [|directional drilling], maybe that footprint will shrink even more.” What Palin was trying to convey is that the threat and damage could be manageable and almost negligible. According to a [|USGS] study done in 1998 stated that “…[|The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day (124,000 m3/d) in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day (113,000 m3/d) in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day (231,000 m3/d), respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels (410,000,000 m3) for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels (680,000,000 m3), respectively. In 2007, the United States consumed 20.68 m bbls of petroleum products per day. It produced roughly 5 million barrels per day (790,000 m3/d) of crude oil, and imported 10 million barrels per day (1,600,000 m3/d) of crude and 3.5 million barrels per day (560,000 m3/d) of petroleum products…]” and it summarizes with “In anticipation of the need for scientific support for policy decisions and in light of the decade-old perspective of a previous assessment, the USGS has completed a reassessment of the petroleum potential of the ANWR 1002 area. This was a comprehensive study by a team of USGS scientists in collaboration on technical issues (but not the assessment) with colleagues in other agencies and universities. The study incorporated all available public data and included new field and analytic work as well as the reevaluation of all previous work. Using a methodology similar to that used in previous USGS assessments in the ANWR and the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska, this study estimates that the total quantity of technically recoverable oil in the 1002 area is 7.7 BBO (mean value), which is distributed among 10 plays. Most of the oil is estimated to occur in the western, undeformed part of the ANWR 1002 area, which is closest to existing infrastructure. Furthermore, the oil is expected to occur in a number of accumulations rather than a single large accumulation. Estimates of economically recoverable oil, expressed by probability curves, show increasing amounts of oil with increasing price. At prices less than $13 per barrel, no commercial oil is estimated, but at a price of $30 per barrel, between 3 and 10.4 billion barrels are estimated. Economic analysis includes the costs of finding, developing, producing, and transporting oil to market based on a 12 percent after-tax return on investment, all calculated in constant 1996 dollars.  The amounts of in-place oil estimated for the ANWR 1002 area are larger than previous USGS estimates. The increase results in large part from improved resolution of reprocessed seismic data and geologic analogs provided by recent nearby oil discoveries.” This has given us a great insight of the potential economical value for everyone: the increase of the (US) domestic value is going to have an impact on the OPEC price tag, the Alaskan is going to get an annual incentive of $1964 per resident according to John Mitchell in the [|National Geographic article] in Aug. 2001, every senator, representative and governor in the past 25 years has supported drilling, even nationwide, we see a growing trend of United States’ supportive in drilling in Alaska according to both the recent PEW Foundation poll (50% of Americans favor drilling of oil and gas in ANWR while 43% oppose (compared to 42% in favor and 50% opposed in February of the same year)and CNN poll (conducted on August 31, 2008 reported 59% favor drilling for oil in ANWR, while 39% oppose it). And this is not to mention that as a whole, United States is going to get out of the long-overdue payback on our national deficit in the foreign petroleum trade, The United States Department of Energy estimates that ANWR oil production between 2018 and 2030 would reduce the cumulative net expenditures on imported crude oil and liquid fuels by an estimated $135 to $327 billion (2006 dollars), reducing the foreign trade deficit according to the [|2006 congressional budget]. this is not to mention former president George W. Bush’s hope in creating more jobs in the oil field in Alaska and let’s not forget about the caribous, “What about the caribous?” one might ask, well, caribou population was one of the biggest concerns regarding the oil field construction, but according to the Heartland Institute publication in 2001, it stated that caribous around the oil field (as shown in the table below as in the eastern region) has increased over the years. |||||||| **Caribou numbers in the Central Arctic Herd 1992-2000 ** (increase 36.8%) || 6,327 (decrease 57.4%) || 18,093 (decrease 22.8%) || (decrease 23.0%) || 10,669 (increase 68.6%) || 19,730 (increase 9.0%) || (increase 41.6%) || 14,295 (increase 34.0%) || 27,128 (increase 37.5%) || <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">So really, it’s a win-win situation, even for the caribous, what else are we waiting for, other than passing the bill? <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">
 * **<span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">Year **<span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;"> || **<span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">Eastern Range **<span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">  || **<span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">Western Range **<span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">  || **<span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">Total **<span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">  ||
 * <span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">1992 || <span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">8,602  || <span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">14,842  || <span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">23,444  ||
 * <span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">1995 || <span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">11,766
 * <span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">1995 || <span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">11,766
 * <span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">1996 || <span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">9,061
 * <span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">2000  || <span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">12,833
 * <span style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">Census counts of the number of caribou in the Central Arctic caribou herd including ranges without oil fields (Eastern Range), ranges with oil field development (Western Range), and the entire herd. The percent increase or decrease from the previous census is indicated below the census number ||