Lesson Plans – Oil Spill debates
Lesson plan # 1
Learning evidence v. Regurgitating evidence
Background for this lesson plan
There are upsides and downsides to the open-source era of debate evidence. I cast no judgment on the
wisdom of final verdict – but I contend that this era should alter the way we teach, especially at debate
camps.
One downside of open-source debating is that students manage far-larger quantities of evidence and
are, on balance, less-familiar with it.
This – of course – is inevitable. In this era of debate camps, very few students are going to originally
research and highlight every single card that they use. Thus, our lesson plans need to adjust to the
times. This era calls for instructors to “pick their spots” – and to have their students really, really know a
handful of useful files.
This exercise is designed to teach students the rationale behind what is included in a file and why it’s
included. I have chosen the example of the oil spills 1AC because it’s a little more meaningful to know
one’s Affirmative backwards and forwards. It is a little less disastrous if the students don’t deeply
understand the answers to a file that the debate infrequently.
While I happen to have chosen “oil spills”, this idea exports to any file that you sense your students will
be using with great regularity.
Lesson plan – explained
Give the students an untagged, un-underlined stream of cards about oil spills. One such sample is
included.
In a group setting, go through each piece of evidence in order. Give each student 1-2 minutes to
highlight and tag the next piece of evidence. Stop after each card to minimize the chance of losing them
to boredom.
After each card, call upon one student to read their version aloud (their tag and the portions of the
evidence they’ve chosen to highlight). It is less important how they’ve tagged or highlighted the
evidence – and more important how this serves as a vehicle for discussion and familiarization. The
process of having them read aloud should accomplish a few things:
 It should generate a discussion from students that tagged or underlined differently.
 At some point, it should spark a broader conversation about the difference between:
o An informative section of evidence vs.
o … a strategically or rhetorically useful section of evidence
 It should get the students asking (or the teacher nudging) about some of the items
referenced in the card.
In a camp or classroom setting, this is also a great way to ensure that they’ve correctly installed the
template and know how to use the Function keys.
If you need to prod them into discussion, I have included a few possible talking points for each card.
These are on the next page.
Talking points for each card
This list is not exhaustive – and I am hoping that teachers and students see many additional threads.
Card # 1 – LaGesse ‘12
 What is the Deepwater Horizon spill ?... they may know it by another name.
 Why is it important for the Aff to be able to argue that a lack of US-Cuabn relations (or US
expertise) “lessens the chance of a coordinated response of the sort that was crucial to
containing damage from the Deepwater Horizon spill” ?...
 Who is Jorge Piñon ?...
 Is he biased ?...
 Why are these lines important ?...
o “Cuba is determined to continue exploring”
o “shallow water holds less promise for a major find. But that doesn't mean Cuba will
give up trying.”
Card # 2 – Helman ‘11
 What is Repsol ?... Why do they matter ?..
 Why is this line especially important – “The U.S. embargo will do nothing to prevent oil
drilling from taking place in Cuban waters.” ?...
 Why would Repsol have “to train its people and scrounge for spare parts from the rest of
the world”. This could bleed into a broader discussion of “secondary sanctions”.
Card # 3 – Bolstad ‘12
 Who is William Reilly ?...
 Who is Lee Hunt ?...
 Flushing out the distinction between prevention and reaction.
Card # 4 – Stephens ‘11
 Continuing the distinction between prevention and reaction.
 What is a relief well ?...
 Why is the hurricane distinction (as opposed to the drilling accident distinction) so
strategically important for the Affirmative ?...
 We can begin to have a discussion about repetitive warrants. For instance, some of the
strong parts of this card speak to the importance of quick responses. These portions of the
evidence – while powerfully worded – start to become repetitive with parts of the LaGesse
and Helman cards above. In the wake of that, should the student underline this card ?...
should they cut this card altogether ?.. should they re-highlight portions of the LaGesse or
Helman cards ?... All of these questions start to get at the heart of efficiency. It would be
awesome if we could all read the longest arguments and re-enforce them with even longer
evidence later-on… unfortunately – in life and in debate – we rarely are afforded the time to
do.
 Hoya-Spartan students will be meeting with officials from The US Dept of Treasury – so a
discussion of Treasury’s reactive role is not only important in terms of the in-round strategy,
but can serve as a tease for what students may say in those meetings.
Card # 5 – Zakaria ‘11
 Who is Fareed Zakaria ?... I think threads like these can bleed into students actually
watching a Sunday morning talk show and may start to use debate research as a means to
engage them politically.
 Another great example of repetitive highlighting. The following line is great, but overkill in a
time sensitive speech:
“A Chinese-constructed drilling rig is owned by an Italian oil company and is on its way
to Cuban waters. Spain's Repsol, Norway's Statoil and India's ONGC will use the 53,000
ton rig to explore for oil. Petro giants from Brazil, Venezuela, Malaysia and Vietnam are
also swooping in. “
Card # 6 – Almeida ‘12
 Time to talk geography – talking about how oil might spread Florida Keys and to the US East
Coast.
 Time to talk BP oil spill… While that was an especially large spill, US response teams
prevented a far-worse spread – one that easily could have gotten to the Carolinas or even
further North. Talk about this handles the Neg argument that “oil spill impacts are
empirically false b/c of the BP spill”.
 Talk about why a Cuban oil spill would be worse than BP – mainly because of Cuba being
home to spawning grounds for fish populations throughout the region.
Card # 7 – Mittermeier ‘11
 Who is Russell Mittermeier ?. This may create a fun distraction where monkeys get
discussed.
 I think this is a slightly-distinct biodiversity impact. It is strategically distinct from the classic
impacts about how “this one species could be the one that unravels the whole food chain”.
Warrants that may be worth highlighting and discussing:
o Biodiversity solves “the next new pathogen”
o Biodiversity solves “agricultural resilience”
o “Human activities have elevated the rate of species extinctions to a thousand or
more times the natural background rate”
 What is the hotspot thesis ?... what qualifies as a hotspot ?..
 who is Norman Myers ?...
 what is endemism (in the context of biodiversity) ?...
Card # 8 – CEPF ‘10
 this evidence establishes that there are 34 biodiversity “hotspots” around the world. This
may be good or bad for the Affirmative – depending upon one’s perspective.
 I think it’s important to note that Mittermeier is internally referenced in this card – as it
establishes a consistency between the internal link to the Caribbean and the broader impact
claim made by Mittermeier.
Card # 9 – National Commission ‘11
 This card could cause a broader discussion about the importance of strategic diversity. This
card sets-up an advantage that’s independent of any biodiversity or ecological claims.
 How does this evidence address the claim of “empirically false, there already was a big BP oil
spill ?”…
 Are these authors qualified ?...
 What is the Macondo well ?..
***Need to script-up the rest of the module …
The Evidence for the Exercise
***Card # 1
LaGesse ‘12
David LaGesse reporter, with recent articles that have appeared in National Geographic, Money, and most frequently in U.S. News & World
Report – National Geographic News – November 19, 2012 – internally quoting Jorge Piñon, a former president of Amoco Oil Latin America (now
part of BP) and an expert on Cuba's energy sector who is now a research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin.–
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/11/121119-cuba-oil-quest/
But an energy-poor Cuba also has its risks. One of the chief concerns has been over the danger of an
accident as Cuba pursues its search for oil, so close to Florida's coastline, at times in the brisk currents of
the straits, and without U.S. industry expertise on safety. The worries led to a remarkable series of
meetings among environmentalists, Cuban officials, and even U.S government officials over several
years. Conferences organized by groups like the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and its
counterparts in Cuba have taken place in the Bahamas, Mexico City, and elsewhere. The meetings
included other countries in the region to diminish political backlash, though observers say the primary
goal was to bring together U.S. and Cuban officials. EDF led a delegation last year to Cuba, where it has
worked for more than a decade with Cuban scientists on shared environmental concerns. The visitors
included former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator William Reilly, who co-chaired the
national commission that investigated BP's 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster and spill of nearly 5 million
barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico. (Related Quiz: "How Much Do You Know About the Gulf Oil
Spill?") They discussed Cuba's exploration plans and shared information on the risks. "We've found
world-class science in all our interactions with the Cubans," said Douglas Rader, EDF's chief oceans
scientist. He said, however, that the embargo has left Cubans with insufficient resources and
inexperience with high-tech gear. Although the United States and Cuba have no formal diplomatic
relations, sources say government officials have made low-profile efforts to prepare for a potential
problem. But the two nations still lack an agreement on how to manage response to a drilling disaster,
said Robert Muse, a Washington attorney and expert on licensing under the embargo. That lessens the
chance of a coordinated response of the sort that was crucial to containing damage from the Deepwater
Horizon spill, he said. "There's a need to get over yesterday's politics," said Rader. "It's time to make
sure we're all in a position to respond to the next event, wherever it is." In addition to the
environmental risks of Cuba going it alone, there are the political risks. Piñon, at the University of Texas,
said success in deepwater could have helped Cuba spring free of Venezuela's influence as the time nears
for the Castro brothers to give up power. Raúl Castro, who took over in 2008 for ailing brother Fidel,
now 86, is himself 81 years old. At a potentially crucial time of transition, the influence of Venezuela's
outspoken leftist president Hugo Chávez could thwart moves by Cuba away from its state-dominated
economy or toward warmer relations with the United States, said Piñon. Chávez's reelection to a sixyear term last month keeps the Venezuelan oil flowing to Cuba for the foreseeable future. But it was
clear in Havana that the nation's energy lifeline hung for a time on the outcome of this year's
Venezuelan election. (Chávez's opponent, Henrique Capriles Radonski, complained the deal with Cuba
was sapping Venezuela's economy, sending oil worth more than $4 billion a year to the island, while
Venezuela was receiving only $800 million per year in medical and social services in return.) So Cuba is
determined to continue exploring. Its latest partner, Russia's Zarubezhneft, is expected to begin drilling
this month in perhaps 1,000 feet of water, about 200 miles east of Havana. Piñon said the shallow water
holds less promise for a major find. But that doesn't mean Cuba will give up trying.
***Card # 2
Helman ‘11
Christopher Helman – Forbes Staff: Southwest Bureau covering Houston, the US energy capital – Forbes – “U.S. Should Drop Cuba Embargo For
Oil Exploration” – December 12th – http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/12/12/u-s-should-drop-cuba-embargo-for-oilexploration/
In a few months Spanish oil company Repsol will start drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba, in a spot just
70 miles south of Key West. Soon Repsol–and its JV partners Norway’s Statoil and India’s ONGC–will be
joined by rigs from PetroVietnam, Malaysia’s Petronas and Venezuela’s PDVSA. But you won’t see any
U.S. companies there. Inexplicably, the U.S. maintains its economic embargo against the Castro regime.
This wrong-headed policy represents a dangerous threat to the environment and a huge missed
opportunity to the U.S. oil industry. The U.S. embargo will do nothing to prevent oil drilling from taking
place in Cuban waters. But it will prevent that work from being done by the most experienced
companies with the highest-quality equipment. Norway’s Statoil is a proven operator with a long history
in the North Sea and the Gulf. The rest of those companies are just getting started offshore. A group of
U.S. lawmakers in September urged Repsol (ticker: REPYY.PK) to call off its Cuba plans or face the threat
of U.S. lawsuits. Repsol wisely called that bluff. At least the Obama administration is doing something to
ensure that Repsol’s drilling rig is up to snuff. According to an excellent article from Bloomberg today,
Repsol’s Chinese-built Scarabeo 9 rig will soon by boarded by four U.S. inspectors (two from the Coast
Guard, two from the Dept. of Interior) who will do what they can to check out the rig and watch some
drills. But, according to the article, there will be real limits to what the inspectors can inspect. They
won’t get to check the rig’s all-important blowout preventor, or the well casing or drilling fluids that are
to be used. Though the U.S. inspectors will discuss any concerns they have with Repsol, they will have no
enforcement authority. Although the offshore industry’s best service companies and parts
manufacturers are right here on the U.S. Gulf coast, Repsol will have to train its people and scrounge for
spare parts from the rest of the world.
***Card # 3
Bolstad ‘12
Erika Bolstad is a reporter who covers Washington for the Anchorage Daily News, the Idaho Statesman and McClatchy
Newspapers. This evidence internally quotes Lee Hunt, the former president of the International Association of Drilling
Contractors. Hunt, in this instance, is arguably not biased in favor of drilling, as he is speaking to safety and clean-up regimes
and he is speaking before a liberal think-tank in favor of human rights – McClatchy Newspapers – May 10, 2012 –
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/10/148433/cuba-embargo-could-threaten-oil.html#.UaoUWpyADq0
The 50-year-old U.S. embargo of Cuba is getting in the way of safety when it comes to deepwater drilling
in Cuban waters, an expert on the communist country’s offshore drilling activity said Thursday. Lee
Hunt, the former president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, warned that Cold
War-era economic sanctions threaten not only Florida’s economy and environment but that of Cuba,
too, in the event of a major disaster on the scale of 2010’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The worst-case
scenario is "state-sponsored chaos at a disaster site," Hunt said during an event sponsored by the Center
for International Policy, a Washington think tank that advocates for a foreign policy based on human
rights. The U.S. Coast Guard has extensive response plans, as does the state of Florida. But Hunt said he
would give prevention efforts an "F" grade. He likened the work to stocking body bags for a plane crash
– but not training pilots to fly safely or to maintain aircraft properly. "We’re getting ready for what will
inevitably happen if we don’t take the right proactive steps," Hunt said. His warning and that of other
experts came as the Spanish oil company Repsol is about to tap an offshore reservoir beneath 5,600 feet
of seawater and about 14,000 feet of rock. The company, the first of many set to drill for oil off Cuba’s
coast, is working just 77 nautical miles from Key West. Workers are about a week from completing their
drilling and are beginning the technically demanding phase of capping the well and preparing it for
possible production, the panelists at the event said. Former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief
William Reilly, who along with former Florida Sen. Bob Graham co-chaired the presidential commission
that examined BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill, said that in his most recent visit to Cuba he was reassured
that Repsol was moving slowly in Cuban waters to avoid any surprises. Dan Whittle of the Environmental
Defense Fund said that in his visits to Cuba, well-thumbed copies of the commission’s report looked as
though they were "read even more in Havana than here." Reilly also noted that Cuban officials are
regular readers of daily bulletins from U.S. agencies on U.S. oil drilling regulations. He said he urged
them to follow Mexican offshore guidelines – which he said are based on U.S. rules. "Nobody is
predicting a catastrophe in association with anything that the Cubans are overseeing," Reilly said. "In
every way, the Cuban approach to this is responsible, careful and attentive to the risks that they know
they’re undertaking." "Nevertheless, should there be a need for a response . . . the United States
government has not interpreted its sanctions policy in a way that would clearly make available in
advance the kind of technologies that would be required," Reilly said.
***Card # 4
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
The BP disaster highlights the needs for a timely response to spills, the containment of damage, and
clean-up. There were approximately eight rigs capable of drilling relief wells to the depth of Macondo
that were available in the Gulf. If the blow-out occurred in Cuban territorial water, the embargo would
not allow rigs capable of drilling relief wells to be contracted by the operator (Repsol or CUPET, in the
first instance). Companies under the current rules cannot hire a U.S. firm to drill a relief well. In fact,
legislation 50 introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2010 would have penalized such activities under The
Helms-Burton Act. 51 Of greater risk and concern, however, is that spills are often more likely because
of hurricane activity prevalent in the Gulf, and are exacerbated by the role hurricanes play in spreading
oil after a spill. 52 In the event of a spill, were assistance from U.S. firms permitted, relief would take 24–
48 hours to arrive on scene. Barring their participation, however, it would take 30–50 days for help to
arrive from Brazil, Northern Europe, Africa, or S.E. Asia. In the case of the BP spill, as Lee Hunt said,
“Admiral Landry 53 (8th Coast Guard District Commander) had personnel 24 hours x 7 days a week on
phones to get booms; can Repsol or any subsequent operator do that?” 54 OFAC, the Treasury
Department office that administers and enforces trade sanctions, has authority to issue licenses on an
emergency basis, but the BP spill shows that the early, critical response needed would be made slower
by the time required to procure licenses. 55 The Obama administration argues that some firms are precleared to respond. But experts say the current scheme makes it impossible to pre-clear the correct
technology, and that much more needs to be done—and can be done—under current law.
***Card # 5
Zakaria ‘11
Fareed Rafiq Zakaria is a journalist and author. From 2000 to 2010, he was a columnist for Newsweek and editor of Newsweek International. In
2010 he became editor-at-large of Time. He is the host of CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS, Global Public Square. He is also a frequent commentator
and author about issues related to international relations, trade, and American foreign policy – “Why our Cuba embargo could lead to another
Gulf oil disaster” – CNN: Global Public Square Blogs – 9-19-11 – http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/19/why-our-cuba-policycould-lead-to-another-gulf-oil-spill/
Can you remember what explosive crisis America and the world was fixated on last summer? It wasn't
the deficit, jobs or Europe. It was an oil disaster. Remember the BP spill? Tons of crude gushing into the
Gulf of Mexico? Well, in the weeks and months that followed, there was a lot of discussion about how to
make sure it didn't happen again. But what struck me this week is that we have a new dangerous drilling
zone right on our doorstep - Cuba. Estimates suggest that the island nation has reserves of anywhere
from 5 billion to 20 billion barrels of oil. The high end of those estimates would put Cuba among the top
dozen oil producers in the world. Predictably, there's a global scramble for Havana. A Chineseconstructed drilling rig is owned by an Italian oil company and is on its way to Cuban waters. Spain's
Repsol, Norway's Statoil and India's ONGC will use the 53,000 ton rig to explore for oil. Petro giants from
Brazil, Venezuela, Malaysia and Vietnam are also swooping in. Of course, we can't partake because we
don't trade with Cuba. But what about at least making sure there are some safety procedures that are
followed that would protect the American coastline? You see at 5,500 feet below sea level, these oil rigs
off Cuba will go even deeper than the Deepwater Horizon rig that blew up on our coast last year, and
the coast of Florida, remember, is just 60 miles away from Cuban waters. What happens if there's
another oil spill? Will it be easy and quick to clean up? No. You see, the nearest and best experts on
safety procedures and dealing with oil spills are all American, but we are forbidden by our laws from
being involved in any way with Cuba. Our trade embargo on Cuba not only prevents us from doing
business with our neighbor but it also bars us from sending equipment and expertise to help even in a
crisis. So, if there is an explosion, we will watch while the waters of the Gulf Coast get polluted. Now,
this is obviously a worst case hypothetical, but it's precisely the kind of danger we should plan for and
one we can easily protect against if we were allowed to have any dealings with Cuba. This whole mess is
an allegory for a larger problem. We imposed an embargo on Cuba at the height of the Cold War, 52
years ago, when we were worried about Soviet expansion and the spread of communism. Well, there is
no more Soviet Union, and I don't think there's a person in the world who believes America could be
infected by Cuban communism today. But the antique policies remain - antique and failed policies. They
were designed, you recall, to force regime change in Cuba. Well, the Castros have thrived for five
decades, using American hostility as a badge of Cuban nationalism. All the embargo has done is to
weaken the Cuban people, keep them impoverished and cut them off from the world.
***Card # 6
Almeida ‘12
Rob Almeida is Partner/CMO at gCaptain. He graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1999 with a B.S in Naval Architecture and spent 6.5
years on active duty as a Surface Warfare Officer. He worked for a year as a Roughneck/Rig Manager trainee on board the drillship Discoverer
Americas. May 18th – http://gcaptain.com/drilling-cuba-embargo-badly/
In short however, Cuba’s access to containment systems, offshore technology, and spill response
equipment is severely restricted by the US embargo, yet if a disaster occurs offshore, not only will Cuban
ecosystems be severely impacted, but those of the Florida Keys, and US East Coast. If disaster strikes
offshore Cuba, US citizens will have nobody else to blame except the US Government because outdated
policies are impacting the ability to prepare sufficiently for real-life environmental threats. Considering
Cuba waters are home to the highest concentration of biodiversity in the region and is a spawning
ground for fish populations that migrate north into US waters, a Cuban oil spill could inflict
unprecedented environmental devastation if not planned for in advance.
***Card # 7
Mittermeier ‘11
(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological
Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30
years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations. He is the President of Conservation International and he is
considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book
Biodiversity Hotspots – F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. This
evidence also internally references Norman Myers, a very famous British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity. available at:
http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)
Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is irreversible. Human activities
have elevated the rate of species extinctions to a thousand or more times the natural background rate
(Pimm et al. 1995). What are the consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost
opportunity for future resource use. Scientists have discovered a mere fraction of Earth’s species
(perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the biology of even fewer (Novotny et al. 2002).
As species vanish, so too does the health security of every human. Earth’s species are a vast genetic
storehouse that may harbor a cure for cancer, malaria, or the next new pathogen – cures waiting to be
discovered. Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all commercial
medicines – even more in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein 2008). Natural forms, processes,
and ecosystems provide blueprints and inspiration for a growing array of new materials, energy sources,
hi-tech devices, and other innovations (Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been compared to
burning down the world’s libraries without knowing the content of 90% or more of the books. With loss
of species, we lose the ultimate source of our crops and the genes we use to improve agricultural
resilience, the inspiration for manufactured products, and the basis of the structure and function of the
ecosystems that support humans and all life on Earth (McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond material
welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency, and freedom of choices and
actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural,
spiritual, and moral costs inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake,
and wild plants and animals are integral to the fabric of all the world’s cultures (Wilson 1984). The road
to extinction is made even more perilous to people by the loss of the broader ecosystems that underpin
our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and
mangrove forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage from
tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003
emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East Asia have been directly connected to trade in
wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss, more subtle
but equally damaging, include the deterioration of Earth’s natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in
the past decade alone is estimated to be costing the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009).
Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human communities that depend
on them. For example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer less from the
diseases that plague degraded reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earth’s climate changes, the
roles of species and ecosystems will only increase in their importance to humanity (Turner et al.2009). In
many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about the biodiversity in the place in
which they live. They also depend upon these ecosystems the most – and, broadly speaking, it is these
areas over which they have the most control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important
and that every nation, every region, and every community should do everything possible to conserve
their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities? Extinction is a global
phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. More practically, biodiversity, the
threats to it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast
majority of the global conservation budget – perhaps 90% – originates in and is spent in economically
wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally flexible funds available – in the
hundreds of millions annually – be guided by systematic priorities if we are to move deliberately toward
a global goal of reducing biodiversity loss. The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation is
complex, but can be framed as a single question. Given the choice, where should action toward reducing
the loss of biodiversity be implemented first? The field of conservation planning addresses this question
and revolves around a framework of vulnerability and irreplaceability (Margules and Pressey2000).
Vulnerability measures the risk to the species present in a region – if the species and ecosystems that
are highly threatened are not protected now, we will not get another chance in the future.
Irreplaceability measures the extent to which spatial substitutes exist for securing biodiversity. The
number of species alone is an inadequate indication of conserva-tion priority because several areas can
share the same species. In contrast, areas with high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must
conserve these places because the unique species they contain cannot be saved elsewhere. Put another
way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily concentrated in certain areas, these
areas have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else, and many (but
not all) of these areas are the areas at greatest risk of disappearing because of heavy human impact.
Myers’ seminal paper (Myers1988) was the first application of the principles of irreplaceability and
vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale. Myers described ten tropical forest
“hotspots” on the basis of extraordinary plant endemism and high levels of habitat loss, albeit without
quantitative criteria for the designation of “hotspot” status. A subsequent analysis added eight
additional hotspots, including four from Mediterranean-type ecosystems (Myers 1990).After adopting
hotspots as an institutional blueprint in 1989, Conservation Interna-tional worked with Myers in a first
systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two strict quantitative criteria: to qualify as a hotspot, a
region had to contain at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics ( > 0.5% of the world’s total), and it had
to have 30% or less of its original vegetation (extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These efforts
culminated in an extensive global review (Mittermeier et al.1999) and scientific publication (Myers et
al.2000) that introduced seven new hotspots on the basis of both the better-defined criteria and new
data. A second systematic update (Mittermeier et al.2004) did not change the criteria, but revisited the
set of hotspots based on new data on the distribution of species and threats, as well as genuine changes
in the threat status of these regions. That update redefined several hotspots, such as the Eastern
Afromontane region, and added several others that were suspected hotspots but for which sufficient
data either did not exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists outside of those regions. Sadly,
it uncovered another region – the East Melanesian Islands – which rapid habitat destruction had in a
short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region that failed to meet the “less than 30% of
original vegetation remaining” criterion to a genuine hotspot.
***Card # 8
CEPF ‘10
(quoting Mittermeier -- the same author that establishes the “hotspot” thesis and writes our impact ev. , Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a
primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct
Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. CEPF is the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – “Ecosystem Profile: THE
CARIBBEAN ISLANDS BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT” – Prepared by: BirdLife International in collaboration with: Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust /
Bath University The New York Botanical Garden and with the technical support of: Conservation International-Center for Applied Biodiversity
Science; assistance for this report was offered by 100 international and non-profit organizations. Jan 15th –
http://www.cepf.net/Documents/Final_Caribbean_EP.pdf)
The Caribbean Islands Hotspot is one of the world’s greatest centers of biodiversity and endemism, yet
its biodiversity and the natural services it provides are highly threatened. Although the islands have
protected areas systems, most ar e inadequately managed and important areas lack protection. This
strategy will ensure that CEPF funds are employed in the most effective manner and generate significant
conservation results that not only complement the actions of other stakeholders but also enable
significant expansion of strategic conservation for the benefit of all. Everyone depends on Earth’s
ecosystems and their life-sustaining benefits, such as clean air, fresh water and healthy soils. Founded in
2000, the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) has become a global leader in en abling civil
society to participate in and benefit from conserving some of the world’s most critical ecosystems. CEPF
is a joint initiative of l'Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the Gl obal
Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,
and the World Bank. As one of the founding partners, Conservation International ad ministers the global
program through a CEPF Secretariat. CEPF provides grants for nongovern mental and other private
organizations to help protect biodiversity hotspots, Earth’s most biologically rich and threatened areas.
The convergence of critical areas for conservation with millions of people who are impoverished and
highly dependent on healthy ecosystems is more ev ident in the hotspots than anywhere else. CEPF is
unique among funding mechanisms in th at it focuses on biological areas rather than political boundaries
and examines conservation th reats on a landscape-scale basis. A fundamental purpose of CEPF is to
ensure that civil society is engaged in efforts to conserve biodiversity in the hotspots, and to this end,
CEPF provides ci vil society with an agile and flexible funding mechanism complementing funding
currently available to government agencies. CEPF promotes working alliances among commun ity
groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), government, academic institutions and the private
sector, combining unique capacities and eliminating duplication of efforts for a comprehensive approach
to conservation. CEPF targets trans-boundary cooperation for areas rich of biological value that straddle
national borders or in areas where a regional approach may be more effective than a national approach.
A recent, updated analysis reveals the existence of 34 biodiversity hotspots, each holding at least 1,500
endemic plant species, and having lost at least 70 percent of its original habitat extent (Mittermeier et al
. 2005). The Caribbean islands qualify as one of these global biodiversity hotspots by virtue of their high
endemicity and high degree of threat. The Caribbean Islands Hotspot is exceptionally important for
global biodiversity conservation. The hotspot includes important ecosystems, fro m montane cloud
forests to coral reefs, and supports populations of unique species amounting to at least 2 percent of the
world’s total species.
***Card # 9
National Commission ‘11
Commission is co-chaired by William K. Reilly. Reilly was Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President George H. W.
Bush. He has served as president of World Wildlife Fund, as a founder or advisor to several business ventures, and on many boards of directors.
In 2010, he was appointed by President Barack Obama co-chair of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore
Drilling to investigate the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Report to the President; National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling – January 2011
http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DEEPWATER_ReporttothePresident_FINAL.pdf
Chapters 4 through 7 lay out the results of our investigation in detail, highlighting the crucial issues we
believe must inform policy going forward: the specific engineering and operating choices made in drilling
the Macondo well, the attempts to contain and respond to the oil spill, and the impacts of the spill on
the region’s natural resources, economy, and people—in the context of the progressive degradation of
the Mississippi Delta environment. Chapters 8 through 10 present our recommendations for reforms in
business practices, regulatory oversight, and broader policy concerns. We recognize that the
improvements we advocate all come with costs and all will take time to implement. But inaction, as we
are deeply aware, runs the risk of real costs, too: in more lost lives, in broad damage to the regional
economy and its long-term viability, and in further tens of billions of dollars of avoidable clean-up costs.
Indeed, if the clear challenges are not addressed and another disaster happens, the entire offshore
energy enterprise is threatened—and with it, the nation’s economy and security. We suggest a better
option: build from this tragedy in a way that makes the Gulf more resilient, the country’s energy
supplies more secure, our workers safer, and our cherished natural resources better protected.
Lesson Plan # 2
Mini-Debate and student judging
Lesson Plan described
Basic drill:
 One-on-one “mini-debates” over the Cuban oil spills debates. Debates are in front of the
rest of the classroom/lab. Debaters will draw upon the evidence in this section of the file for
Aff-Neg answers.
What each student does for this exercise:
 Ask each student to highlight the cards in the “1NC and beyond” section; and the “2AC/1AR”
section.
 Also each student to pre-flow the 1AC advantage – which is included below.
 Two students will be selected to have a one-on-one mini-debate before the group
 The remaining students will flow and help the judge the debate along with the instructor(s)
 I like to ask that all students prepare for giving a 1NC… and then I like to break and ask the
students to highlight all of the optional 2AC-1AR ev… Even though only two students get called
upon it leaves all of the students more prepared to judge – as they can speak with a voice of “I
would have included that card”, etc.
The hypothetical Aff plan for the exercise at hand:
 No plan text is read in this instance, but both sides should assume that the Affirmative has the
United States Federal Government narrowly lift the embargo on Cuba to allow US firms to
participate in extraction, development and safety endeavors on the issue of oil.
 The student who is Affirmative will not read the enclosed 1AC, but it will serve as the basis of
the Affirmative’s claims. All students should pre-flow it so that they can judge.
If you are one of the two students debating:
 This debate starts with the Negative cross-examining the 1ac (not the 1A reading the 1AC).
 There are four total speeches, plus cross-examination sessions.
 After the opening cx, the Neg speaker will give a 1NC. They will answer the Aff args as they
would in a “real debate”. The neg should draw from the cards in this packet and make up to six
total 1NC arguments.
 The aff will cross-examine the 1NC.
 The Aff speaker will then give the 2AC – they are instructed to answer each point using either
new evidence or relying upon analytics/1ac evidence.
 The neg will then cross-examine the 2AC.
 The neg speaker will then give the 2NC-1NR selecting only some of their favorite answers from
the (six-point) 1NC and (hopefully) reading some additional evidence to support their
arguments.
 The aff will cross-examine the 2NC.
 The Aff will close with giving a 1AR.
If you are one of the students that’s judging along with the instructors – look for the following:
 From the 1NC
o How was the clarity (verbal communication) in this speech ?...
o
o
Did the Neg make a “connection” on certain words or phrases that might become
strategically relevant as the mini-debate progresses ?....
What did the Neg fail to say that you would have added ?...
 From the 2AC speech
o Did the Aff integrate their opening cross-examination threads into the speech ?...
o Did the Aff address all of the Neg’s points ?....
o What did the Aff fail to say that you would have added ?...
 From the 2NC-1NR
o Going into this speech, which of the original arguments would you emphasize If you
were Neg ?...
o Did the Neg integrate their opening cross-examination threads into the speech ?...
o Did the Neg select an argument or two and substantially develop it ?...
o What is the strongest comparison made in the 2NC-1NR ?...
 From the 1AR
o Did the Aff use embedded clash ?...
o Were there spots where the Aff – given its time constraints – should have read
additional 1AR evidence ?...
Speech times for this mini-debate – in order:
 Cx of the 1A by the Neg – up to 2 minutes
 1NC – just read the six answers.
 Cx of the 1N by the Aff – up to 2 minutes
 2AC – up to 2 minutes. Please address all of your opponent’s arguments.
 Cx of the 2A by the Neg– up to 2 minutes
 2NC-1NR – up to 3.5 minutes. Be selective in the manner described above.
 Cx of the 2NC-1NR by the Aff – up to 2 minutes
 1AR – max of 2 minutes.
The nexus question for the student judges
 After the mini-debate ends – please answer the following as the judge:
o Based on the arguments in this particular mini-debate, do you:
 think there’s a large risk of a catastrophic biodiversity impact ?...
 think there’s a medium-sized risk of a catastrophic biodiversity impact ?...
 think there’s a small risk of a catastrophic biodiversity impact ?...
o Why ?...
Tips for instructors
First – If students are young, consider having the instructor help with flowing as the speeches are
going. Two ideas:
o
o
If team teaching, have one colleague flow on the board/projector
Irrespective of team teaching, show the students a good (blank) flowsheet – with
columns.
Second – Try to observe flowing – especially by the students that are not debating.
This is easiest when team teaching, but even when you’re solo it’s fairly-easy to follow the debate. Most
instructors can flow well-enough in their head to lead a discussion. Some instructors collect flows as
homework.
Third – tell the whole group that the two students called-upon will be the only students speaking
before the group at this time.
Otherwise, students tend to not judge their peers and to furiously-prep for the contingency where they
get called-upon for the next iteration assignment.
Fourth – allot time between speeches (and after the final speech) for feedback.
The students that are debating won’t care – they’ll often want to steal additional prep time – which is
oddly fine in this context… And, the real goal here is the assessments of the student judges – as that
steers the discussion and broader lessons.
Tweaks to consider for this lesson plan:
These items depend upon one’s teaching philosophy, or simply where your students are at with topicfamiliarity and experience:
First – The instructor(s) could easily broaden the size of the mini-debate – using longer speech times
and-or adding more to the debate (a disad from the opening packet, etc).
Second – these speeches do not need to take place in front of the group.
Often times, Georgetown and SDI campers are not quite ready (on Day One) to speak before the entire
group. An easy adjustment is to assign prep for this speech as homework and then hear each student
give the 1NC or a 2AC speech (in reaction to a set of 1NC answers that you piece together) to a lab
leader, an RA, etc.
The obvious downside is that a lot of assessment flows from observing the judging feedback given by
peers. In our experience, students comment that they learned more as a judge than they did as
individual speaker (in these sorts of exercise).
Finally – revealing the evidence set for the 1AC might complicate lesson plan #3. So, you could switch
the order of the lesson plans or you could require that students not hand-in the 1AC from lesson # 2 as
their completed homework for lesson plan # 3.
1AC evidence set
***For the purposes of this drill, suppose the 1AC read the following cards in their Oil
Spills Advantage **
Cuban oil drilling inevitable. The embargo only locks-out US safety experts.
LaGesse ‘12
David LaGesse¶ reporter, with recent articles that have appeared in National Geographic, Money, and most frequently in U.S. News & World
Report – National Geographic News – November 19, 2012 – internally quoting Jorge Piñon, a former president of Amoco Oil Latin America (now
part of BP) and an expert on Cuba's energy sector who is now a research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin.–
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/11/121119-cuba-oil-quest/
But an
energy-poor Cuba also has its risks. One of the chief concerns has been over the danger of an
accident as Cuba pursues its search for oil, so close to Florida's coastline, at times in the brisk currents of the straits, and
without U.S. industry expertise on safety . The worries led to a remarkable series of meetings among environmentalists,
Cuban officials, and even U.S government officials over several years. Conferences organized by groups like the nonprofit Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF) and its counterparts in Cuba have taken place in the Bahamas, Mexico City, and elsewhere. The meetings included other
countries in the region to diminish political backlash, though observers say the primary goal was to bring together U.S. and Cuban officials.¶ EDF
led a delegation last year to Cuba, where it has worked for more than a decade with Cuban scientists on shared environmental concerns. The
visitors included former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator William Reilly, who co-chaired the national commission that
investigated BP's 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster and spill of nearly 5 million barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico. (Related Quiz: "How
Much Do You Know About the Gulf Oil Spill?") They discussed Cuba's exploration plans and shared information on the risks.¶ "We've found
world-class science in all our interactions with the Cubans," said Douglas Rader, EDF's chief oceans scientist. He said, however, that the
embargo has left Cubans with insufficient resources and inexperience with high-tech gear.¶ Although the
United States and Cuba have no formal diplomatic relations, sources say government officials have made low-profile efforts to prepare for a
potential problem. But the two nations still lack an agreement on how to manage response to a drilling disaster, said Robert Muse, a
Washington attorney and expert on licensing under the embargo. That lessens
the chance of a coordinated response of the
sort that was crucial to containing damage from the Deepwater Horizon spill, he said.¶ "There's a need
to get over yesterday's politics," said Rader. "It's time to make sure we're all in a position to respond to
the next event, wherever it is."¶ In addition to the environmental risks of Cuba going it alone , there
are the political risks. Piñon, at the University of Texas, said success in deepwater could have helped Cuba spring free of Venezuela's
influence as the time nears for the Castro brothers to give up power. Raúl Castro, who took over in 2008 for ailing brother Fidel, now 86, is
himself 81 years old. At a potentially crucial time of transition, the influence of Venezuela's outspoken leftist president Hugo Chávez could
thwart moves by Cuba away from its state-dominated economy or toward warmer relations with the United States, said Piñon.¶ Chávez's
reelection to a six-year term last month keeps the Venezuelan oil flowing to Cuba for the foreseeable future. But it was clear in Havana that the
nation's energy lifeline hung for a time on the outcome of this year's Venezuelan election. (Chávez's opponent, Henrique Capriles Radonski,
complained the deal with Cuba was sapping Venezuela's economy, sending oil worth more than $4 billion a year to the island, while Venezuela
was receiving only $800 million per year in medical and social services in return.)¶ So
Cuba is determined to continue
exploring . Its latest partner, Russia's Zarubezhneft, is expected to begin drilling this month in perhaps 1,000 feet of water, about 200 miles
east of Havana. Piñon said the shallow
water holds less promise for a major find. But that doesn't mean Cuba
will give up trying.
Embargo fails and stops pro-active approach to spills.
Helman ‘11
Christopher Helman – Forbes Staff: Southwest Bureau covering Houston, the US energy capital – Forbes – “U.S. Should Drop Cuba Embargo For
Oil Exploration” – December 12th – http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/12/12/u-s-should-drop-cuba-embargo-for-oilexploration/
In a few months Spanish oil company Repsol
will start drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba, in a spot just 70 miles south of
Key West. Soon Repsol–and its JV partners Norway’s Statoil and India’s ONGC–will be joined by rigs from Petro Vietnam ,
Malaysia ’s Petronas and Venezuela ’s PDVSA. But you won’t see any U.S. companies there. Inexplicably, the
U.S. maintains its economic embargo against the Castro regime.¶ This wrong-headed policy represents a
dangerous threat to the environment and a huge missed opportunity to the U.S. oil industry. The U.S. embargo will do
nothing to prevent oil drilling from taking place in Cuban waters. But it will prevent that work from
being done by the most experienced companies with the highest-quality equipment . Norway’s Statoil is a
proven operator with a long history in the North Sea and the Gulf. The rest of those companies are just getting started offshore.¶ A group of
U.S. lawmakers in September urged Repsol (ticker: REPYY.PK) to call off its Cuba plans or face the threat of U.S. lawsuits. Repsol wisely called
that bluff.¶ At least the Obama administration is doing something to ensure that Repsol’s drilling rig is up to snuff. According to an excellent
article from Bloomberg today, Repsol’s Chinese-built Scarabeo 9 rig will soon by boarded by four U.S. inspectors (two from the Coast Guard,
two from the Dept. of Interior) who will do what they can to check out the rig and watch some drills. But, according to the article, there will be
real limits to what the inspectors can inspect. They won’t get to check the rig’s all-important blowout preventor, or the well casing or drilling
fluids that are to be used. Though the U.S. inspectors will discuss any concerns they have with Repsol, they will have no enforcement
authority.¶ Although
the offshore industry’s best service companies and parts manufacturers are right
here on the U.S. Gulf coast, Repsol will have to train its people and scrounge for spare parts from the
rest of the world.
Absent pro-active steps, accidents are inevitable. US experts key.
Bolstad ‘12
Erika Bolstad is a reporter who covers Washington for the Anchorage Daily News, the Idaho Statesman and McClatchy
Newspapers. This evidence internally quotes Lee Hunt, the former president of the International Association of Drilling
Contractors. Hunt, in this instance, is arguably not biased in favor of drilling, as he is speaking to safety and clean-up regimes
and he is speaking before a liberal think-tank in favor of human rights – McClatchy Newspapers – May 10, 2012 –
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/10/148433/cuba-embargo-could-threaten-oil.html#.UaoUWpyADq0
The 50-year-old U.S. embargo of Cuba is getting in the way of safety when it comes to deepwater drilling in
Cuban waters, an expert on the communist country’s offshore drilling activity said Thursday.¶ Lee Hunt, the former president of the International
Association of Drilling Contractors, warned that Cold War-era economic sanctions threaten not only Florida’s economy and
environment but that of Cuba, too, in the event of a major disaster on the scale of 2010’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The worst-case
scenario is "state-sponsored chaos at a disaster site," Hunt said during an event sponsored by the Center for International Policy, a
Washington think tank that advocates for a foreign policy based on human rights. ¶ The U.S. Coast Guard has extensive response plans, as does the state of Florida.
But Hunt said he would
give prevention efforts an "F" grade. He likened the work to stocking body bags for
a plane crash – but not training pilots to fly safely or to maintain aircraft properly.¶ " We’re getting
ready for what will inevitably happen if we don’t take the right proactive steps ," Hunt said.¶ His warning and that
of other experts came as the Spanish oil company Repsol is about to tap an offshore reservoir beneath 5,600 feet of seawater and about
14,000 feet of rock. The company, the first of many set to drill for oil off Cuba’s coast, is working just 77 nautical miles from Key West.¶ Workers are about a week
from completing their drilling and are beginning the technically demanding phase of capping the well and preparing it for possible production, the panelists at the
event said.¶ Former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief William Reilly, who along with former Florida Sen. Bob Graham co-chaired the presidential
commission that examined BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill, said that in his most recent visit to Cuba he was reassured that Repsol was moving slowly in Cuban waters
to avoid any surprises. Dan Whittle of the Environmental Defense Fund said that in his visits to Cuba, well-thumbed copies of the commission’s report looked as
though they were "read even more in Havana than here."¶ Reilly also noted that Cuban officials are regular readers of daily bulletins from U.S. agencies on U.S. oil
drilling regulations. He said he urged them to follow Mexican offshore guidelines – which he said are based on U.S. rules.¶ "Nobody is predicting a catastrophe in
association with anything that the Cubans are overseeing," Reilly said. "In every way, the Cuban approach to this is responsible, careful and attentive to the risks
should there be a need for a response . . . the United States government has
not interpreted its sanctions policy in a way that would clearly make available in advance the kind of
technologies that would be required," Reilly said.
that they know they’re undertaking."¶ "Nevertheless,
Spill spreads and kills ecosystems. That’s key to regional biodiversity.
Almeida ‘12
Rob Almeida is Partner/CMO at gCaptain. He graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1999 with a B.S in Naval Architecture and spent 6.5
years on active duty as a Surface Warfare Officer. He worked for a year as a Roughneck/Rig Manager trainee on board the drillship Discoverer
Americas. May 18th – http://gcaptain.com/drilling-cuba-embargo-badly/
In short however, Cuba’s
access to containment systems, offshore technology, and spill response equipment is
severely restricted by the US embargo , yet if a disaster occurs offshore, not only will Cuban
ecosystems be severely impacted, but those of the Florida Keys, and US East Coast.¶ If disaster strikes
offshore Cuba, US citizens will have nobody else to blame except the US Government because outdated
policies are impacting the ability to prepare sufficiently for real-life environmental threats. Considering
Cuba waters are home to the highest concentration of biodiversity in the region and is a spawning
ground for fish populations that migrate north into US waters, a Cuban oil spill could inflict unprecedented
environmental devastation if not planned for in advance.
Biodiversity in specific hotspots checks extinction. Key to ag, medicine, and
ecosystems
Mittermeier ‘11
(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological
Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30
years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations. He is the President of Conservation International and he is
considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book
Biodiversity Hotspots – F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. This
evidence also internally references Norman Myers, a very famous British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity. available at:
http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)
Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is ¶ irreversible. Human
activities have elevated the rate of species extinctions to a¶ thousand or more times the natural
background
rate
(Pimm et al. 1995). What are the¶ consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity¶ for
future resource use. Scientists have discovered a mere fraction of Earth’s species¶ (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the
biology of even fewer¶ (Novotny et al. 2002). As
species vanish, so too does the health security of every¶ human.
Earth’s species are a vast genetic storehouse that may harbor a cure for¶ cancer, malaria, or the next new pathogen –
cures waiting to be discovered.¶ Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all¶ commercial medicines – even
more in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein¶ 2008). Natural forms, processes, and ecosystems provide blueprints and inspiration¶ for a
growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and¶ other innovations (Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been
compared¶ to burning down the world’s libraries without knowing the content of 90% or¶ more of the books. With
loss of species, we
lose the ultimate source of our crops¶ and the genes we use to improve agricultural resilience, the inspiration
for¶ manufactured products, and the basis of the structure and function of the ecosystems¶ that support humans and all
life on Earth
(McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond¶ material welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency,¶
and freedom of choices and actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).¶ Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual,
and moral costs¶ inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake,¶ and wild plants and animals are integral to the
fabric of all the world’s cultures¶ (Wilson 1984). The road to extinction is made even more perilous to people by the loss of the broader
ecosystems that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove
forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage from tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and
Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East Asia have been directly
connected to trade in wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss, more subtle but equally
damaging, include the deterioration of Earth’s natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past decade alone is estimated to be costing
the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009). Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human communities
that depend on them. For example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer less from the diseases that plague degraded
reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earth’s climate changes, the roles of species and ecosystems will only increase in their importance
to humanity (Turner et al.2009).¶ In many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about the biodiversity in the place in
which they live. They also depend upon these ecosystems the most – and, broadly speaking, it is these areas over which they have the most
control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every region, and every community should do
Extinction is a global
phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. More practically, biodiversity, the threats to
everything possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities?
it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the global conservation budget – perhaps
90% – originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally flexible funds
available – in the hundreds of millions annually – be guided by systematic priorities if we are to move deliberately toward a global goal of
reducing biodiversity loss.¶ The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation is complex, but can be framed as a single question.
Given the choice, where
should action toward reducing the loss of biodiversity be implemented first ? The field of
conservation planning addresses this question and revolves around a framework of vulnerability and irreplaceability
(Margules and Pressey2000). Vulnerability measures the risk to the species present in a region – if the species and ecosystems that are highly
threatened are not protected now, we will not get another chance in the future. Irreplaceability measures the extent to which spatial
substitutes exist for securing biodiversity. The number of species alone is an inadequate indication of conserva-tion priority because several
areas can share the same species. In contrast, areas with high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must conserve these places because
the unique species they contain cannot be saved elsewhere. Put another way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily
concentrated in certain areas, these areas have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else, and many (but not
all) of these areas are the areas at greatest risk of disappearing because of heavy human impact.¶ Myers’ seminal paper (Myers1988) was the
first application of the principles of irreplaceability and vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale. Myers
described
ten tropical forest “hotspots” on the basis of extraordinary plant endemism and high levels of habitat loss, albeit
without quantitative criteria for the designation of “hotspot” status. A subsequent analysis added eight additional hotspots, including four from
Mediterranean-type ecosystems (Myers 1990).After adopting hotspots as an institutional blueprint in 1989, Conservation Interna-tional worked
with Myers in a first systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two strict quantitative criteria: to qualify as a hotspot, a region had to
contain at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics (¶ >¶ 0.5% of the world’s total), and it had to have 30% or less of its original vegetation
(extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These efforts culminated in an
scientific publication (Myers et al.2000) that introduced
extensive global review (Mittermeier et al.1999) and
seven new hotspots on the basis of both the better-defined criteria
and new data. A second systematic update (Mittermeier et al.2004) did not change the criteria, but revisited the set of hotspots based on
new data on the distribution of species and threats, as well as genuine changes in the threat status of these regions. That update redefined
several hotspots, such as the Eastern Afromontane region, and added several others that were suspected hotspots but for which sufficient data
either did not exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists outside of those regions. Sadly, it uncovered another region – the East
Melanesian Islands – which rapid habitat destruction had in a short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region that failed to meet the
“less than 30% of original vegetation remaining” criterion to a genuine hotspot.
Caribbean is one such hotspot.
CEPF ‘10
(quoting Mittermeier -- the same author that establishes the “hotspot” thesis and writes our impact ev. , Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a
primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct
Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. CEPF is the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – “Ecosystem Profile: THE
CARIBBEAN ISLANDS BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT” – Prepared by: BirdLife International¶ in collaboration with:¶ Durrell Wildlife Conservation¶
Trust / Bath University¶ The New York Botanical Garden¶ and with the technical support of:¶ Conservation International-Center¶ for Applied
Biodiversity Science; assistance for this report was offered by 100 international and non-profit organizations. Jan 15th –
http://www.cepf.net/Documents/Final_Caribbean_EP.pdf)
The Caribbean Islands Hotspot is one of the world’s greatest centers of biodiversity and¶ endemism, yet
its biodiversity and the natural¶ services it provides are highly threatened. Although¶ the islands have protected areas systems, most ar¶ e
inadequately managed and important areas lack¶ protection. This strategy will ensure that CEPF¶ funds are employed in the most effective
manner¶ and generate significant conservation results that¶ not only complement the actions of other¶ stakeholders but also enable significant
expansion¶ of strategic conservation for the benefit of all.¶
Everyone depends on Earth’s ecosystems and their life-
sustaining benefits , such as clean air,¶ fresh water and healthy soils. Founded in 2000,¶ the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
(CEPF)¶ has become a global leader in en¶ abling civil society to participate in and benefit from conserving¶ some of the world’s most critical
ecosystems. C¶ EPF is a joint initiative of l'Agence Française de¶ Développement, Conservation International, the Gl¶ obal Environment Facility,
the Government of¶ Japan, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the World Bank. As one of the¶ founding partners,
Conservation International ad¶ ministers the global program through a CEPF¶ Secretariat.¶ CEPF provides grants for nongovern¶ mental and
other private organizations to help protect¶ biodiversity hotspots, Earth’s most biologically¶ rich and threatened areas. The convergence of¶
critical areas for conservation with millions¶ of people who are impoverished and highly¶ dependent on healthy ecosystems is more ev¶ ident in
the hotspots than anywhere else.¶ CEPF is unique among funding mechanisms in th¶ at it focuses on biological areas rather than¶ political
boundaries and examines conservation th¶ reats on a landscape-scale basis. A fundamental¶ purpose of CEPF is to ensure that civil society is¶
engaged in efforts to conserve biodiversity in¶ the hotspots, and to this end, CEPF provides ci¶ vil society with an agile and flexible funding¶
mechanism complementing funding currently¶ available to government agencies.¶ CEPF promotes working alliances among commun¶ ity
groups, nongovernmental organizations¶ (NGOs), government, academic institutions and¶ the private sector, combining unique capacities¶ and
eliminating duplication of efforts for a¶ comprehensive approach to conservation. CEPF¶ targets trans-boundary cooperation for areas rich of¶
biological value that straddle national borders¶ or in areas where a regional approach may be more effective than a national approach.¶ A
recent, updated analysis reveals the existence of¶ 34 biodiversity hotspots, each holding at least¶ 1,500 endemic plant species, and having lost
at¶ least 70 percent of its original habitat extent¶ (Mittermeier¶
et al¶ . 2005). The Caribbean islands qualify as one
of these global biodiversity¶ hotspots by virtue of their high endemicity and high degree of threat.¶ The
Caribbean Islands Hotspot is exceptionally important for global biodiversity conservation.¶ The hotspot
includes important ecosystems, fro¶ m montane cloud forests to coral reefs, and¶ supports populations of unique species amounting to at least
2 percent of the world’s total¶ species.
15 Cards for the Negative to consider using in the 1NC and beyond
( ) Turn – plan causes drilling.
a) Embargo discouraging Cuban drilling – makes other countries more appealing.
Krauss ‘12
(et al; Clifford Krauss has been a correspondent for The New York Times since 1990. He currently is a national business correspondent based in
Houston, covering energy. He covered the State Department, Congress and the New York City police department before serving as Buenos Aires
bureau chief and Toronto bureau chief. Before working at The Times, he worked as a foreign correspondent for The Wall Street Journal and was
the Edward R. Murrow fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is author of “Inside Central America: Its People, Politics and History,”
(1991). He has published articles in Foreign Affairs, GQ and Wilson Quarterly, along with other publications. New York Times – November 9,
2012 – http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/world/americas/rigs-departure-to-hamper-cubas-oil-prospects.html?_r=0)
The best-case scenario for production, according to some oil experts, would be for Cuba to eventually become a medium-size producer like
Ecuador. But as
the three dry holes showed, far more exploration effort would be needed, and that
presents a challenge for a country with limited resources and the hurdle of American sanctions. There are
many offshore areas that are competing with Cuba for the attention of oil companies , particularly off
the coasts
of South America and East and West Africa.¶ In Cuba’s case, the American embargo makes it far
more difficult for companies seeking to explore Cuban waters. The Scarabeo 9, the rig set to depart, is the only one
available that is capable of drilling in deep waters and complies with the embargo. To get it built, Repsol, the Spanish oil giant, was forced to
contract an Italian operator to build a rig in China to drill exploration wells.
b) Lifting embargo uniquely causes drilling. Prefer daily drilling damage over
unlikely accidental catastrophe.
White ‘10
(Jonathan P. White; J.D. 2010, University of Colorado Law School. Mr. White thanks Daniel Whittle, Cuba Program Director, Environmental
Defense Fund; Dr. Orlando Rey Santos, Lawyer and Director of the Environmental Directorate, Ministry of Science, Technology, and the
Environment (CITMA), Havana, Cuba; and Richard Charter, Senior Policy Advisor, Defenders of Wildlife, for their guidance and input in
preparation of this note. Summer, 2010 – Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy – 21 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y
557 – lexis)
Even without a catastrophe like the Deepwater Horizon spill, as a basic matter, leaks from offshore drilling rigs
pollute, and natural forces common to the Florida Straits, such as tropical cyclones, could [*579] exacerbate spills or cause new spills and further
contamination. n143 As an example of the impact of a benign tropical storm, in 2005, Tropical Storm Arlene damaged an oil platform off the coast of Louisiana,
discharging 560 gallons of oil and causing the death of over 1,000 pelicans. n144 Beyond the otherwise-forgotten Arlene, the 2005 hurricane season saw the release
of 717,234 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico during the passage of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. n145 Significant amounts of oil also spilled into Gulf waters that
year from hurricane-damaged onshore refineries and holding facilities in Louisiana and Texas, resulting in estimated discharges of around 9 million gallons of oil.
n146 This figure falls only slightly below the 10.8 million gallons of oil released into Alaska waters from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. n147 Moreover, dangerous
tropical cyclones are common in the Florida Straits region, exemplified by Cuba suffering over $ 10 billion in damages from Hurricanes Gustav, Ike, and Paloma in
2008. n148 Lastly, many scientists claim that the intensity and regularity of hurricanes will increase as the earth's climate warms, further subjecting the Florida
Straits to catastrophic storms and creating additional hazards for oil infrastructure. n149 The 2005 and 2008 hurricane seasons demonstrate the risk in offshore oil
drilling in the Florida Straits. Accordingly, one frequently-cited reason not to drill in the Florida Straits is the potential for hurricane-inflicted oil pollution, with Mark
Ferrulo, director of the Florida Public Interest Research Group, stating that drilling proposals in the Straits amount to "putting hundreds of drilling rigs in the middle
of a hurricane highway." n150¶ An additional geographical
concern is that the Florida Straits comprise a main conduit
for the Gulf of Mexico Loop Current, a flow of water that originates in the Gulf and passes through the Straits before entering the
Atlantic Ocean as the Gulf Stream. n151 A spill in the Straits poses not only localized effects, but could also leave oil deposits
on Florida's Atlantic beaches. n152 Any oil spill in the Florida Straits would [*580] reach Miami and Fort Lauderdale beaches because of the Gulf Stream current.
n153¶ Meanwhile, oil drilling in the Florida Straits will stress an ecosystem already strained by development, a strain existing prior to the Deepwater Horizon oil
The mere presence of offshore drilling infrastructure will introduce heavy metals and
hydrocarbons into Florida Straits waters surrounding industrial platforms. n154 The Florida Straits presently suffer assorted pollution problems. Discharge
spill.
from agriculture, urban development, and sewage facilities in the United States and Cuba flows into the Straits and their coral reefs. n155 It is estimated that over
seventy percent of wastewater generated in Cuba, including most of the human sewage in Havana, a city located on the Florida Straits, receives only minor
treatment before being dumped directly into streams and surrounding Florida Straits waters. n156 Pollution-induced red-tides have also occurred in waters off
Florida, and coral reefs in the state show signs of stress. n157 ¶ An unknown issue at the time this Note goes to publication is the environmental havoc the ongoing
Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico will cause in the Florida Straits. Recalling the previously discussed scenario of oil caught in the Gulf of Mexico Loop
Current, scientists and oceanographers warn that the crude from the spill off Louisiana could enter the Gulf of Mexico Loop Current and pass through the Florida
Straits, reaching the Atlantic Ocean, fouling south Florida beaches and ecosystems, and persisting in shallow coastal areas like Florida Bay for years. n158 Some
oceanographers warn the oil spilled at the Deepwater Horizon site may be carried by the Gulf Stream and reach beaches as far away as those in North Carolina.
n159 The spill itself, which continues to leak at the time this Note goes to print because a blowout preventer failed to activate, and because a series of fixes have
not stopped the leak, reveals in grave detail the inherent risks in offshore drilling. n160¶ [*581] In conclusion, oil infrastructure and industrial
development in the Florida Straits will compound this ecosystem's preexisting environmental problems.
Even with stringent environmental controls and laws mandating environmental impact reviews, industrial development will introduce
additional toxins into the Florida Straits, while placing the Florida and Cuba coasts at greater peril from oil
slicks.¶ Beyond the environmental risks associated with drilling in the Florida Straits, any industrialization of this maritime zone depends on Cuba's success in
modernizing its refining capacity and reducing bureaucratic impediments to investment. n161 While interest in oil leasing off Cuba has
generated a "buzz," as indicated by the formation of joint ventures between international firms and Cubapetroleo, the considerable
expenses associated with doing business with the communist nation may inhibit drilling. n162
( ) Embargo blocks drilling – 10% provisions and high cost-of-business
LaGesse ‘12
David LaGesse¶ reporter, with recent articles that have appeared in National Geographic, Money, and most frequently in U.S. News & World
Report – National Geographic News – November 19, 2012 – internally quoting Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, a University of Nebraska professor
and expert on Cuba's oil industry – http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/11/121119-cuba-oil-quest/
There's perhaps no better symbol of the complexity of Cuba's energy chase than the
Scarabeo 9, the $750 million rig that spent much of
this year plumbing the depths of the Straits of Florida and Gulf of Mexico. It is the only deepwater platform in the world
that can drill in Cuban waters without running afoul of U.S. sanctions. It was no easy feat to outfit the
rig with fewer than 10 percent U.S. parts, given the dominance of U.S. technology in the ultra-deepwater industry. By some
reports, only the Scarabeo 9's blowout preventer was made in the United States.¶ Owned by the Italian firm Saipem, built in China, and
outfitted in Singapore, Scarabeo 9 was shipped to Cuba's coast at great cost. "They had to drag a rig from the
other side of the world," said Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, a University of Nebraska professor and expert on Cuba's oil industry. "It
made the wells incredibly expensive to drill."¶ Leasing the semisubmersible platform at an estimated cost of
$500,000 a day, three separate companies from three separate nations took their turns at drilling for
Cuba. In May, Spanish company Repsol sank a well that turned out to be nonviable. Over the summer, Malaysia's Petronas
took its turn, with equally disappointing results. Last up was state-owned Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA); on November 2,
Granma, the Cuban national Communist Party daily newspaper, reported that effort also was unsuccessful.¶ It's not unusual to hit dry holes in
drilling, but the approach in offshore Cuba was shaped by uniquely political circumstances. Benjamin-Alvarado
points out that some of the areas drilled did turn up oil. But rather than shift nearby to find productive—if not hugely lucrative—sites, each new
company dragged the rig to an entirely different area off Cuba. It's
as if the companies were only going for the "big
home runs" to justify the cost of drilling, he said. "The embargo had a profound impact on Cuba's efforts
to find oil."
( ) US Embargo blocks oil development
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 112-13
Future challenges in the upstream oil and gas sector need to be understood in terms of current and reported future international oil companies
that are involved in Cuba’s deepwater search for oil and gas: their competency, strategic objectives, and possible long-term contribution to the
island’s goal of becoming energy-independent. As
long as the U.S. government’s current economic and trade restrictions
imposed on the government of Cuba remain in place, all companies, regardless of their nationality or technical
competence, will have a very difficult time monetizing any newly discovered hydrocarbon resources,
because they need access to the U.S. oil services and equipment sector.
( ) No drilling in the squo – all companies have bailed.
O’Grady ‘13
Mary O'Grady is a member of the editorial board at The Wall Street Journal – WSJ – April 24, 2013 –
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324474004578442511561458392.html
Then came promises of an oil boom and last week the predictable bust. The Brazilian state-owned Petrobras
PETR4.BR +1.01% had given up on deep-sea drilling in Cuban waters in 2011. Repsol REP.MC -2.46% gave up in May
2012. The deep water platform it was using was then passed to Malaysia's state-owned Petronas, which also came up empty.
Venezuela's PdVSA had no luck either. In November Cuba announced that the rig that had been in use would
be heading to Asia. Last week came the end of shallow-water drilling.
( ) Sanctions won’t block US safety response – Helix proves.
Bolstad ‘12
Erika Bolstad is a reporter who covers Washington for the Anchorage Daily News, the Idaho Statesman and McClatchy
Newspapers. This evidence internally quotes Lee Hunt, the former president of the International Association of Drilling
Contractors. Hunt, in this instance, is arguably not biased in favor of drilling, as he is speaking to safety and clean-up regimes
and he is speaking before a liberal think-tank in favor of human rights – McClatchy Newspapers – May 10, 2012 –
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/10/148433/cuba-embargo-could-threaten-oil.html#.UaoUWpyADq0
Several of the experts said Thursday they are confident that the Treasury Department could react quickly in an
emergency to allow U.S. oil response teams to get emergency permits to do business with the Cuban
government. The department, which oversees the embargo, has authorized an American firm, Helix Energy Solutions, to
handle spill response for Repsol. It’s a red-tape ordeal that company officials said they’ll have to repeat when
working with the other companies that have contracted to use the same rig next in Cuban waters.
( ) Marine ecosystems are resilient
Kennedy ‘2
Victor Kennedy, PhD Environmental Science and Dir. Cooperative Oxford Lab., 2002, “Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and Global Climate
Change,” Pew, http://www.pewclimate.org/projects/marine.cfm
There is evidence that marine organisms and ecosystems
are resilient to environmental change. Steele (1991) hypothesized that
the biological components of marine systems are tightly coupled to physical factors, allowing them to
respond quickly to rapid environmental change and thus rendering them ecologically adaptable. Some
species also have wide genetic variability throughout their range, which may allow for adaptation to
climate change.
( ) Cuban and non-US prevention efforts are sufficient now.
Sadowski ‘11
Richard Sadowski is a Class of 2012 J.D. candidate, at Hofstra University School of Law, NY. Mr. Sadowski is also the Managing Editor of
Production of the Journal of International Business and Law Vol. XI. “Cuban Offshore Drilling: Preparation and Prevention within the Framework
of the United States’ Embargo” – Sustainable Development Law & Policy Volume 12; Issue 1 Fall 2011: Natural Resource Conflicts Article 10 –
http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1497&context=sdlp
Fears that Cuban offshore drilling poses serious environmental threats because of the proximity to the United
States and the prohibition on U.S. technology transfer are overblown. Cuba has at least as much incentive
to ensure safe-drilling practices as does the United States, and reports indicate that Cuba is taking safety
seriously.64 Lee Hunt, President of the Houston-based International Association of Drilling Contractors, said, “[t]he Cuban oil
industry has put a lot of research, study and thought into what will be required to safely drill,” and that
“they are very knowledgeable of international industry practices and have incorporated many of these
principles into their safety and regulatory planning and requirements.”65 Thus, while the economic embargo of
Cuba restricts American technology from being utilized, foreign sources have provided supplemental
alternatives.66
( ) No Cuban drilling now – rigs have departed.
LaGesse ‘12
David LaGesse reporter, with recent articles that have appeared in National Geographic, Money, and most frequently in U.S. News & World
Report – National Geographic News – November 19, 2012 – http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/11/121119-cuba-oilquest/
An unusual high-tech oil-drilling rig that's been at work off the coast of Cuba departed last week, headed for either Africa or Brazil.
With it went the island nation's best hope, at least in the short term, for reaping a share of the energy treasure
beneath the sea that separates it from its longtime ideological foe. For many Floridians, especially in the Cuban-American community, it was
welcome news this month that Cuba had drilled its third unsuccessful well this year and was suspending
deepwater oil exploration. (Related Pictures: "Four Offshore Drilling Frontiers") While some feared an oil spill in the Straits of Florida, some 70
miles (113 kilometers) from the U.S. coast, others were concerned that drilling success would extend the reviled reign of the Castros, long-time dictator Fidel and his
brother and hand-picked successor, Raúl.
( ) Cuban oil spills stay contained – no risk of large spread
Whittle ‘12
Daniel J. Whittle et al, Cuba Program Director for the Oceans Program, Environmental Defense Fund, 2012, “Bridging the Gulf: Finding Common
Ground on Environmental and Safety Preparedness for Offshore Oil and Gas in Cuba,” http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/EDFBridging_the_Gulf-2012.pdf
While areas at risk of immediate impact appear to be those along the Straits of Florida and U.S. south Atlantic coast, scientists are careful to
note that the models are far from precise, authoritative forecasts. NOAA
specialists themselves emphasize that the models
vary significantly based on weather data and location of the drilling site. Richard Sears, who served as chief
scientific advisor on the federal commission that investigated the Deepwater Horizon disaster, stressed there was significant
uncertainty in projecting the path of the BP oil slick in 2010, even with the combined technical expertise
of federal agencies and private companies.42 “There were a wide array of models surrounding the BP
spill, ranging from most of the oil projected to come ashore to Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida—to a significant
portion going out through the Straits of Florida and up the East Coast towards North Carolina,” Sears said
in a personal interview. “Neither of those happened.”
( ) Spill impact would be very contained – probably only affects Florida
Whittle ‘12
Daniel J. Whittle et al, Cuba Program Director for the Oceans Program, Environmental Defense Fund, 2012, “Bridging the Gulf: Finding Common
Ground on Environmental and Safety Preparedness for Offshore Oil and Gas in Cuba,” http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/EDFBridging_the_Gulf-2012.pdf
In preparation for Repsol’s exploration project in 2012, NOAA
generated computer tracking models to assess the
threat to U.S. coasts and shorelines from deepwater drilling off the coast of Cuba. NOAA selected 20 potential
deepwater drilling sites from the western region of Cuba to the Bahamas. The model was run using 200 different spill
scenarios based on a variety of ocean current and weather conditions. According to the agency’s first study of a hypothetical spill from a
deepwater well site offshore of Cuba, the area at highest risk of shoreline impact could be the eastern shore of
Florida.40 Areas as far north as Charleston, South Carolina could face potential shoreline risk, though
the modeled scenario predicted a lower likelihood of oiling for shorelines north of the Florida border.
( ) Will be safe – foreign operators will solve
Goodhue ‘10
David Goodhue, Editor at The Reporter, Miami/Fort Lauderdale Area, “Cuba Leases to Bring Deepwater Drilling Within 50 Miles of Key West”,
WorkBoat.com (Sept. 9, 2010), internally quoting Jorge Pinon, a visiting research fellow at the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International
University. http://www.workboat.com/ newsdetail.aspx?id=4294998861
While Cuba's CUPET is ill-equipped to carry out drilling operations, many of the companies seeking to lease
blocks off Cuba are veterans of offshore drilling, Pinon said. He added that the DeepWater Horizon incident
was a game-changer in terms of following safety procedures . Other companies planning to follow
Repsol's lead are Statoil of Norway, ONGC of India, Petr"leus of Venezuela, Brazil's Petrobras, Russia's
Gazprom and Petronas of Malaysia, according to several media reports. "Cuba's national oil company does not have the
experience and/or technology for deepwater exploration," Pinon said in an e-mail. "But I believe that the foreign operators
operating in Cuba will now conduct business by the strictest rules in the book . From this point of
view, the Deepwater Horizon incident helped us. [Repsol] can not risk the reputation and cost of another catastrophic
incident." Hunt said he's also heard from people concerned that the rig may be unsafe because it was made in China. "One thing I'd like to
respond to is the horrific response to the Chinese deep drilling. There are five rigs in the Gulf of Mexico right now that were made in China.
The Chinese are not novices at this," he said.
( ) Motive not enough – no rig mechanism for Cuban drilling
LaGesse ‘12
David LaGesse reporter, with recent articles that have appeared in National Geographic, Money, and most frequently in U.S. News & World
Report – National Geographic News – November 19, 2012 – internally quoting Jorge Piñon, a former president of Amoco Oil Latin America (now
part of BP) and an expert on Cuba's energy sector who is now a research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin.–
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/11/121119-cuba-oil-quest/
But last week, Scarabeo 9 headed
away from Cuban shores for new deepwater prospects elsewhere. That
leaves Cuba without a platform that can drill in the ultradeepwater that is thought to hold the bulk of
its stores. " This rig is the only shovel they have to dig for it,"
said Jorge Piñon, a former president of Amoco Oil Latin
America (now part of BP) and an expert on Cuba's energy sector who is now a research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin.
( ) Trend is with the Neg – Cuban oil exploration will stay low in the squo.
Pinon ‘13
(Progreso Weekly talked with energy affairs researcher Jorge Piñón, a Cuban-American who left the island during Operation Peter Pan and
these many years later continues to talk in first-person-singular when referring to Cuba. Piñón has worked in the oil industry and was president
for Latin America of AMOCO Oil Co. At present, he is a researcher for the Center for Energy and Environmental Resources of the University of
Texas at Austin. The interview was held at the Meliá Habana Hotel in Cuba. The portion quoted in this card are the portions where Pinon is
speaking – Progreso Weekly – May 7th – http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=92634)
That is the process we have conducted for the past 10 years in Cuba, which includes a study by the U.S. Geological Survey. This
for the first time in 2004, estimates
study, done
that in Cuba’s geological north strip, off shore, from Pinar del Río Province to northern
Matanzas province, there are oil reserves. The surveyors raise the possibility that from 4 billion to 6 billion barrels of crude are still to
be found. These geological studies are very environmental, but historically they are highly trusted by our industry. That doesn’t mean that they
guarantee the amount of oil, but it’s the first step in that stage. We are beyond the stage of studies; now we are in the stage of exploration.
Four wells have been exploited by serious international oil companies – each well has cost at least $100 million – so, in other words, it wasn’t a
political “game.” So far, the hoped-for results have not materialized; at least, that’s what I’m told by sources I’ve consulted.
We still have the rest of the Gulf of Mexico, the deep waters in the rest of the Gulf of Mexico, adjacent to the United States’ exclusive zone. I
think that there are possibilities there. In my opinion, in
the next three to five years, unfortunately, I don’t see a high
probability that Cuba will maintain the level of exploration in deep waters such as we’ve seen in the
past two or three years.
( ) Case-by-case safety exemptions solve without lifting embargo
Hatcher ‘10
Monica Hatcher, Energy Reporter for the Houston Chronicle, “Cuba Drilling Poses Spill Issue: Group Says Trade Embargo Could Hinder a
Response by the U.S.”, Houston Chronicle; Sept. 6, 2010 – internally quoting Jorge Piñon, a visiting research fellow at the Cuban Research
Institute of Florida International University – www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Group-warns-Cuba-trade-embargo-could-hurt-a-spill1695883.php
Some who support the decades-old embargo are suspicious of the sudden push to tweak the trade
sanctions and suspect U.S. oil companies are trying to back their way into Cuba's potentially lucrative oil reserves. "I can't see these
companies getting excited over half a dozen wells that are going to be drilled off the coast of Cuba
when there are thousands of wells off the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi. Why all of a sudden are they
worried about this?" asked Jaime Suchlicki, director of the Institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies at the University of Miami. He said
the government already can issue licenses at its discretion in the event of an emergency and that the
industry is pushing to ease the embargo by playing on public fears after the BP Gulf spill.
12 Cards for the 2AC and 1AR to consider using
( ) Recent setbacks won’t stop drilling. Lifting embargo will minimize the risk.
LaGesse ‘12
David LaGesse reporter, with recent articles that have appeared in National Geographic, Money, and most frequently in U.S. News & World
Report – National Geographic News – November 19, 2012 – http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/11/121119-cuba-oilquest/
An unusual high-tech oil-drilling rig that's been at work off the coast of Cuba departed last week, headed for either
Africa or Brazil. With it went the island nation's best hope, at least in the short term, for reaping a share of the energy treasure beneath the sea
that separates it from its longtime ideological foe. For many Floridians, especially in the Cuban-American community, it was welcome news this
month that Cuba had drilled its third unsuccessful well this year and was suspending deepwater oil exploration. (Related Pictures: "Four
Offshore Drilling Frontiers") While some feared an oil spill in the Straits of Florida, some 70 miles (113 kilometers) from the U.S. coast, others
were concerned that drilling success would extend the reviled reign of the Castros, long-time dictator Fidel and his brother and hand-picked
successor, Raúl. "The regime's latest efforts to bolster their tyrannical rule through oil revenues was unsuccessful," said U.S. Representative
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a written statement. But
disappointing foray into deepwater doesn't end its quest for energy.
Cuba's
The nation produces domestically only about
half the oil it consumes. As with every aspect of its economy, its choices for making up the shortfall are sorely limited by the 50-year-old United
States trade embargo. At what could be a time of transition for Cuba, experts agree that the failure of deepwater exploration increases the
Castro regime's dependence on the leftist government of Venezuela, which has been meeting fully half of Cuba's oil needs with steeply
subsidized fuel. (Related: "Cuba's New Now") And it means Cuba
will continue to seek out a wellspring of energy
independence without U.S. technology, greatly increasing both the challenges, and the risks.
( ) Hurricanes cause spills. Quick reaction also needed.
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
The BP disaster highlights the needs for a timely response to spills , the containment of damage, and clean-up. There
were approximately eight rigs capable of drilling relief wells to the depth of Macondo that were available in the Gulf. If the blow-out
occurred in Cuban territorial water, the embargo would not allow rigs capable of drilling relief wells to be contracted by
the operator (Repsol or CUPET, in the first instance). Companies under the current rules cannot hire a U.S. firm to drill a relief well.
In fact, legislation 50 introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2010 would have penalized such activities under The Helms-Burton Act. 51 Of
greater risk and concern, however, is that spills are often more likely because of hurricane activity prevalent in
the Gulf, and are exacerbated by the role hurricanes play in spreading oil after a spill. 52 In the event of a
spill, were assistance from U.S. firms permitted, relief would take 24–48 hours to arrive on scene.
Barring their participation, however, it would take 30–50 days for help to arrive from Brazil, Northern
Europe, Africa, or S.E. Asia. In the case of the BP spill, as Lee Hunt said, “Admiral Landry 53 (8th Coast Guard District Commander) had
personnel 24 hours x 7 days a week on phones to get booms; can Repsol or any subsequent operator do that?” 54 OFAC, the
Treasury
Department office that administers and enforces trade sanctions, has authority to issue licenses on an emergency
basis, but the BP spill shows that the early, critical response needed would be made slower by the
time required to procure licenses. 55 The Obama administration argues that some firms are pre-cleared to respond. But experts
say the current scheme makes it impossible to pre-clear the correct technology, and that much more needs to be done—and can be done—
under current law.
( ) Aff boosts reaction time. US Experts solve best.
Zakaria ‘11
Fareed Rafiq Zakaria is a journalist and author. From 2000 to 2010, he was a columnist for Newsweek and editor of Newsweek International. In
2010 he became editor-at-large of Time. He is the host of CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS, Global Public Square. He is also a frequent commentator
and author about issues related to international relations, trade, and American foreign policy – “Why our Cuba embargo could lead to another
Gulf oil disaster” – CNN: Global Public Square Blogs – 9-19-11 – http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/19/why-our-cuba-policycould-lead-to-another-gulf-oil-spill/
Can you remember what explosive crisis America and the world was fixated on last summer? It wasn't the deficit, jobs or Europe. It was an oil
disaster. Remember
the BP spill? Tons of crude gushing into the Gulf of Mexico? Well, in the weeks and months that followed, there
have a new
dangerous drilling zone right on our doorstep - Cuba. Estimates suggest that the island nation has reserves of anywhere from 5
was a lot of discussion about how to make sure it didn't happen again. But what struck me this week is that we
billion to 20 billion barrels of oil. The high end of those estimates would put Cuba among the top dozen oil producers in the world. Predictably,
there's a global scramble for Havana. A Chinese -constructed drilling rig is owned by an Italian oil company and is on its
way to Cuban waters. Spain 's Repsol, Norway's
Statoil and
India 's ONGC will use the 53,000 ton rig to explore for oil.
Brazil , Venezuela , Malaysia and Vietnam are also swooping in. Of course, we can't partake
because we don't trade with Cuba. But what about at least making sure there are some safety
procedures that are followed that would protect the American coastline? You see at 5,500 feet below sea level, these oil rigs
off Cuba will go even deeper than the Deepwater Horizon rig that blew up on our coast last year, and the coast of
Florida, remember, is just 60 miles away from Cuban waters. What happens if there's another oil spill? Will it be easy and
quick to clean up? No . You see, the nearest and best experts on safety procedures and dealing with oil
Petro giants from
spills are all American, but we are forbidden by our laws from being involved in any way with Cuba.
Our trade embargo on Cuba not only prevents us from doing business with our neighbor but it also bars
us from sending equipment and expertise to help even in a crisis. So, if there is an explosion, we will watch while
the waters of the Gulf Coast get polluted. Now, this is obviously a worst case hypothetical, but it's precisely the kind of danger we should plan
for and one we can easily protect against if we were allowed to have any dealings with Cuba. This whole mess is an allegory for a larger
problem. We imposed an embargo on Cuba at the height of the Cold War, 52 years ago, when we were worried about
Soviet expansion and the spread of communism. Well, there is no more Soviet Union, and I don't think there's a person in the world who
believes America could be infected by Cuban communism today. But the antique policies remain - antique and failed policies. They
were designed, you recall, to force regime change in Cuba. Well, the Castros have thrived for five decades, using American hostility as a badge
of Cuban nationalism. All
the embargo has done is to weaken the Cuban people, keep them impoverished
and cut them off from the world.
( ) Embargo won’t work – Cuban drilling efforts are inevitable
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
Would such legislation, if enacted, work? Daniel Whittle is skeptical, “Punitive measures
designed to discourage foreign oil
companies from doing business with Cuba will only work so long, if at all. Cuba will eventually drill, if
not with Spanish companies with Russians or with Chinese or others. The time to engage is now to make
sure that drilling, if done, is done in the safest manner possible.
( ) Strong Cuban laws mean nothing – they lack the resources to check oil spills
White ‘10
(Jonathan P. White; J.D. 2010, University of Colorado Law School. Mr. White thanks Daniel Whittle, Cuba Program Director, Environmental
Defense Fund; Dr. Orlando Rey Santos, Lawyer and Director of the Environmental Directorate, Ministry of Science, Technology, and the
Environment (CITMA), Havana, Cuba; and Richard Charter, Senior Policy Advisor, Defenders of Wildlife, for their guidance and input in
preparation of this note. Summer, 2010 – Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy – 21 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y
557 – lexis)
Ultimately, the
most significant obstacle to sustainable development in Cuba remains the paucity of financial
resources to effect serious [*586] enforcement. n188 Cuba may have an educated populace and an interest in stewarding
its ecological resources, but whether the country has the financial means, or will, to enforce its lofty
environmental agenda remains to be seen. n189 Again, to fault Cuba entirely misses the deep financial impact of the U.S.
embargo. Whittle, Lindeman, and Tripp explain that "Cuba ... needs capital, and lots of it" to push forward with environmentally-friendly
technologies. n190 Beyond the festering nickel plants, perhaps most emblematic of the divide between the actual state of things and Cuba's
professed pro-environment political and legal agenda is that the capital city's main estuary, Havana Bay, is among the most putrid bodies of
water in the Caribbean. n191 The United Nations Environment Programme specifically cited Havana Bay's severe pollution problems in its 2004
Global International Waters Report for the Caribbean Islands. n192 The U.N. report noted that the bay suffers from industrial pollution, sewage
discharge, and run-off from urban development, and the report affirmed that laws addressing the bay's pollution "lack cohesion." n193 If
Cuba's abdication of oversight over the health of the capital's marine backyard illustrates its future
attitude towards remote offshore oil drilling operations, the consequences for the Florida Straits
could be "absolutely scary," to recall the comments of Juan Leon of the Florida Keys Wild Bird Center regarding the prospect of oil
drilling off Cuba. n194 Alternatively, Havana Bay and the Moa nickel mines represent environmental problems that have lingered for years; the
government's action in fettering the development of an international airport with conservation benchmarks suggests that regulation of new
development, as opposed to existing industry, may be more aggressive.
( ) Cancellations irrelevant. Russian Drilling coming. We post-date.
Tamayo ‘13
(Juan – Writer at The Miami Herald. Past Experience Andean Bureau Chief at Miami Herald Caribbean Correspondent at Miami Herald Foreign
Editor at Miami Herald. Award-winning journalist with more than 25 years of experience as foreign correspondent and editor with The Miami
Herald, focusing on Latin America - especially Cuba - as well as the Middle East and Europe. Proven writer, editor and analyst, with contacts
around the world. Miami Herald – Friday, 05.31.13 http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/31/3424471/russian-oil-companysuspends.html#storylink=cpy)
A Russian state oil company drilling off Cuba’s northern shores has reportedly confirmed that it is
temporarily halting its exploration — the fourth disappointment for Cuba’s dreams of energy self-sufficiency in less than two
years. The announcement by Zarubezhneft signaled an end to the only active exploration program on the island, which now relies on highly
subsidized oil from the beleaguered Venezuelan government of President Nicolas Maduro. Zarubezhneft confirmed this week that it was halting
work due to “geological” problems but added that
it will resume its exploration next year , the Reuters news agency reported
Thursday in a dispatch from Havana. The Russians withdrawal had been expected because the Norwegian company that owns the drilling
platform they have been leasing, the Songa Mercur, already had announced that it would be leaving Cuban waters in July for another contract.
Zarubezhneft’s confirmation, nevertheless, signals “another disappointment” for Cuba’s dreams of finding oil in its waters, said Jorge Pinon, a
Cuba energy expert at the University of Texas in Austin. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that Cuba’s offshore waters have “significant
undiscovered conventional oil potential” — between 4.6 billion and 9.3 billion barrels. Cuban officials estimate the potential reserves at 20
billion. “This is the second geological area in Cuba that … seemed to be promising,” Pinon said of Zarubezhneft’s exploration block. But finding
the oil means “you have to go into your pocket to drill exploratory wells.” Spain’s Repsol oil company spent $100 million in the early part of
2012 unsuccessfully exploring with the Scarabeo 9 drilling platform, especially built in China to avoid the restrictions of the U.S. embargo, in
deep waters northwest of Havana. Petronas of Malaysia, Russia’s Gazprom and Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) later leased the Scarabeo
platform but also struck out, and the rig left Cuban waters at the end of last year. Zarubezhneft then gave it a try, leasing the Songa Mercur to
explore waters not as deep and east of Havana starting late last year. Neighboring Bahamas also has expressed interest in that area, but the
Russians also drilled a dry hole. The
Russians are considered likely to meet their promise to return next year
because President Vladimir Putin’s government has been pushing hard to warm up political and commercial
ties with Moscow’s one-time allies in Havana. Cuba’s oil explorations have caused concern among U.S. environmentalists and
tourism officials that any spills would impact the entire Eastern Seaboard, from the Florida Keys to Cape Cod in Massachusetts. Supporters
of improving U.S. relations with Cuba argued that Washington should allow American oil firms to get a
piece of the potential profits. The U.S. embargo adds about 20 percent to that island’s exploration
costs, according to Cuban officials.
( ) Accident mirrors BP spill – embargo will block solvency.
Goodhue ‘10
David Goodhue, Editor at The Reporter, Miami/Fort Lauderdale Area, “Cuba Leases to Bring Deepwater Drilling Within 50 Miles of Key West”,
WorkBoat.com (Sept. 9, 2010), http://www.workboat.com/ newsdetail.aspx?id=4294998861
By next summer, a
huge semi-submersible oil rig is expected to be stationed about 40 to 50 miles from Key West for
deepwater drilling to explore for oil in the Straits of Florida. The rig is part of a vast international business operation. The vessel was made in
China, it's owned by the Italian oil company Eni SpA, and it will be operated by Repsol, Spain's oil and natural gas firm, which is also leasing the
area known as the Jaguey from Cuba to look for oil. The Scarabeo 9 rig, with a crew of about 220 people, will
be drilling about
Macondo Prospect well --
6,500 feet below the surface, more than a thousand feet deeper than the
more commonly known as the DeepWater Horizon, for the drilling rig stationed in the Gulf of Mexico before it exploded
and sank in April. Over the spring and summer, the Macondo well became the site of the largest oil spill in U.S.
history. Great Britain, home of the company in charge of the Macondo well, British Petroleum, enjoys good diplomatic
relations with the United States. Cuba, in contrast, has had a 50-year trade embargo imposed by the United States. In
the DeepWater Horizon disaster, bureaucratic red tape is at least partially to blame for the delay in
cleaning up the nearly 5 million barrels of crude oil that gushed from the well before it was capped in July. The U.S. trade embargo
against Cuba would prevent U.S. companies, in most cases, from helping with cleanup efforts in the event of
an accident on the Scarabeo 9 rig. Even if exceptions were granted, there would at least be significant delays
in aide coming from the United States, according to Lee Hunt, president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, a
Texas-based trade group. He said help would have to come from countries farther away. U.S. parts banned The trade embargo also prevents
Cuba from using technologies made in the United States, used here and in other countries, that are designed to stop or minimize blowouts like
the DeepWater Horizon disaster, Hunt said. "If
there was a blowout in the Jagüey, there would be significant delays in
getting a rig shipped in here from Asia or Europe, under the current embargo situation," Hunt said. "One impact
of the embargo is it prevents companies from buying publicly available parts and supplies that are critical to the operation of equipment like
blowout preventers." The Scarabeo 9 rig has some parts made in the United States, but because they make up less than 10 percent, the rig can
circumvent at least three pieces of federal legislation dealing with the embargo, said Jorge Pinon, a visiting research fellow at the Cuban
Research Institute at Florida International University.
( ) US embargo doesn’t work in the context of oil – it’s functionally a unilateral
embargo.
Sotolongo ‘11
Kristie, Associate Editor, Downstream Newsletter Group, Hart Energy Publishing – Internally quoting Kirby Jones, founder of the Washingtonbased U.S.-Cuba Trade Association – http://www.epmag.com/Production/Cuban-Oil-Rush-Beckons-US-Embargo-Reform_86074
“If it really is 20 billion, then it’s a game changer,” Jonathon Benjamin-Alvarado, a Cuba oil analyst at the University of Nebraska-Omaha, told
Time magazine in 2008. “It provides a lot more justification for changing elements of the embargo, just as we did when we allowed agricultural
and medical sales to Cuba” more than a decade ago. Cuba
has indeed been successful at attracting foreign trade
despite the U.S. embargo , which most of the world renounced two years after the oil find was
reported . In 2006, 182 of 186 members of the United Nations voted on a resolution calling for the U.S. to
end its trade sanctions. It’s therefore no surprise that countries as diverse as China , Norway , India ,
Canada , Spain and Brazil are content drilling for oil in Cuban waters.
( ) Sadowski is wrong — he underestimates the danger.
Lanier ‘13
C. Adam Lanier, J.D. Candidate at the University of North Carolina School of Law, holds a B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, 2013 (“In Deepwater: Cuba, Offshore Drilling, and Political Brinkmanship,” North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial
Regulation (38 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 571), Winter, Lexis-Nexis
n102. But see Richard Sadowski, Cuban Offshore Drilling: Preparation and Prevention within the Framework of the United States' Embargo,
Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y, Fall 2011, at 37 (arguing that the U.S. embargo against Cuba remains necessary). Sadowski argues that "fears of a
Cuban oil spill can be assuaged through less drastic measures such as an oil spill emergency response agreement with Cuba, similar to the one
that the United States has enacted with Mexico." Id. Sadowski
advocates maintaining restrictions on Cuba's access to
U.S. resources and technology - dismissing the environmental concerns as "overblown." Id. at 38. This
position, however, ignores the reality of the danger posed by deepwater drilling in the Straits of Florida,
the impediments to a U.S.-led spill response created by the embargo, and the actual ineffectiveness
of the current U.S. policy toward Cuba. See discussion infra Parts III.A-B.
( ) Squo clean-up policy is reactive. This incentivizes hazardous drilling in Cuba.
Helman ‘11
Christopher Helman – Forbes Staff: Southwest Bureau covering Houston, the US energy capital – Forbes – “U.S. Should Drop Cuba Embargo For
Oil Exploration” – December 12th – http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/12/12/u-s-should-drop-cuba-embargo-for-oilexploration/
But here’s something that completely blows my mind.
The administration, again, according to the Bloomberg article, has granted
some U.S. companies the license to respond to an oil spill were it to occur in Cuban waters. The
government won’t say how many companies have that license or who they are, but there’s at least two of them: Wild Well Control and Helix
Energy Solutions Group. Helix plans to stage a subsea containment cap on the U.S. coast so it can quickly respond to any Cuban blowout. Of
course it’s smart and safe for the U.S. government to put defensive measures in place in the event of a spill, but the
message to the
industry is clear: we refuse to give superior U.S. operators the license to drill for oil in Cuba, but we
want to make sure you’re ready to clean up any problems. And the message to Cuba: we’re not going
to let you use our engineers , just our janitors . Knowing that a top-notch American clean-up crew is
on standby in case of a blowout is not a big incentive for Cuba to keep its own regulators on top of
things.
( ) Loss of hotspots causes extinction to all life.
Mittermeier ‘11
(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological
Anthropology and as conducted fieldwork for over 30 years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations and
he is considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book
Biodiversity Hotspots – F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011 –
available at: http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)
Global changes, from habitat loss and invasive species to anthropogenic climate change, have initiated the sixth great
mass extinction event
in Earth’s history. As
species become threatened and vanish, so too do the broader
ecosystems and myriad benefits to human well-being that depend upon biodiversity . Bringing an end to
global biodiversity loss requires that limited available resources be guided to those regions that need it most. The
biodiversity hotspots do this based on the conservation planning principles of irreplaceability and
vulnerability. Here, we review the development of the hotspots over the past two decades and present an analysis of their biodiversity,
updated to the current set of 35 regions. We then discuss past and future efforts needed to conserve them, sustaining their
fundamental role both as the home of a substantial fraction of global biodiversity and as the ultimate source of
many ecosystem services upon which humanity depends.
( ) Current drilling can’t be safe – embargo still blocks
Almeida ‘12
Rob Almeida is Partner/CMO at gCaptain. He graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1999 with a B.S in Naval Architecture and spent 6.5
years on active duty as a Surface Warfare Officer. He worked for a year as a Roughneck/Rig Manager trainee on board the drillship Discoverer
Americas. May 18th – http://gcaptain.com/drilling-cuba-embargo-badly/
But what
if a catastrophic blowout occurs? This was the subject of last week’s panel discussion at the Carnegie Center for
International Policy in Washington, DC. “There is no standing agreement with Cuba on what to do in case of a blowout,”
says Wayne Smith, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and director of the Cuba Project. Nobody is predicting a catastrophe,
the panel reiterated, and reports indicate that Cuban drillers on board the Scarabeo 9 are being exceedingly cautious, but there’s no substitute
for being prepared in case disaster strikes. Prior to commencing drilling operations,
Repsol contracted Helix Energy Solutions Group
to provide immediate well intervention and other subsea services in case of well issues. It’s a great start, and Helix certainly
proved their capabilities during the 2010 Macondo well blowout and oil spill, however Cuba is under a full economic and diplomatic
embargo with massive implications. This means: 1) The Scarabeo 9’s blowout preventer, the most crucial piece of
well control equipment on board the rig was made by a US company. The trade embargo prohibits OEM
spare parts or repair items to be sold to Repsol. Also, technical expertise from the OEM cannot be provided. 2)
The “capping stacks” which have been created by Helix ESG, BP, the MWCC and others, are not authorized for
use in Cuban waters. This means, if an uncontrolled blowout does occur, these essential piece of equipment will not be
available until authorization is given and a delivery method determined. This is a significant issue considering the BP “capping stack” weighs
somewhere around a half million pounds. Reports indicate there are no cranes in Cuba capable of lifting such a piece of gear that massive on to
a ship. 3) The deepwater
drilling experts in the US are not authorized to provide assistance to Cuba in case
of a disaster. 4) All the training programs that have been developed post-Macondo are not available for Cuban nationals. In fact, any
training that will result in a professional license or certification is off limits to Cubans. 5) Tyvek suits, the essential work-wear for HAZMAT
cleanup, are not authorized to be brought into Cuba due to supposed military applications. In addition… The Scarabeo 9 was classed by DNV on
19 August 2011 in Singapore, and she is due for her 1-year “checkup” on 19 August 2012, with a 3 month window on either side of that date. As
expected, DNV has told us that there will be no US-based employees involved.
( ) Florida is a bio-d hotspot – spills kill it
Nerurkar and Sullivan ‘11
Neelesh Nerurkar, Specialist in Energy Policy, and Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Congressional Research Service, 2011,
“Cuba’s Offshore Oil Development: Background and U.S. Policy Considerations,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41522.pdf
The Florida Keys and adjacent areas comprise diverse and interrelated marine systems. The Florida
reef is the most extensive living coral reef in North American waters, stretching for 325 miles. Reefs, sea grass
beds and mangroves in the region provide habitats for many marine animals, including a number of
threatened and endangered species. These coral reefs and related coastal ecosystems are valuable because they
provide protection from erosion and flooding, especially from severe storms such as hurricanes. Depending on timing, size,
and location, an oil spill can cause significant harm to individual organisms and entire populations in
marine and coastal habitats.41 Spills can cause impacts over a range of time scales, from days to years, or even
decades for certain spills. Acute exposure to an oil spill can kill organisms or have non-lethal but debilitating affects on
organism development, feeding, reproduction, or disease immunity. Ecosystems in which they exist can also be harmed.42 Certain
habitats in the area—such as coral reefs, mangrove swamps, and salt marshes—are especially vulnerable.43 Long-term, chronic
exposure, as occurs from continuous oil releases such as leaking pipelines, offshore production discharges, and non-point sources (e.g.,
urban runoff) can see impacts spread from sea life to the survival and reproductive success of marine birds and
mammals.44
Lesson Plan # 3
Learning 1AC construction
Background for this lesson plan
Again, in this era students are handed an awful lot of completed product.
But, learning the art of 1AC construction (tags, strategic rationales, etc) is educationally important and is
also a long-term competitive necessity.
This lesson plan dove-tails off of the 1st lesson plan – although as more of a homework/overnight
assignment.
Lesson plan – explained
Ask the students to write and hand-in an oil spills advantage using no more than 10 total cards. I have
set this number arbitrarily and you could revise it in either direction – although I recommend setting a
threshold that falls beneath the total number of cards you give them (so that they can learn selectivity).
I am envisioning this as an evening homework assignment – one that I will likely use on one of the first
nights of the debate camp.
They are welcome to use their tags or underlining from the previous lesson plan. They are also welcome
to adjust them based upon the discussion that took place.
They need to highlight and tag the evidence with the following factors in mind:
 Efficiency
 Anticipation not of ALL POSSIBLE negative arguments – but of THE POTENTIALLY STRONGEST
negative arguments. This is where the mini-debate is handy.
 Strategic diversity
 The indispensability of certain cards… for instance, it is tough to write any version of this
advantage without a terminal impact to species loss (Mittermeier)
I am intentionally adding a few cards into the mix for the following reason:
 A great discussion point for the day-after the homework assignment is handed-in is to ask if
the students:
o Used any of the new cards that were added into the mix
o If so, which ones…. and why ?..
 Educationally, new cards are an opportunity for new threads of discussion. Ultimately,
adding these cards:
o Should teach new content about oil spills and Cuba.
o Could spark a conversation about the distinctions between “good card”, “1AC card”,
and “2AC card”.
For more advanced students, there are some interesting twists ones could place on this assignment.
Consider the following devise for teaching selectivity/efficiency:
 The students may write the oil spill with as many cards as they wish – but they must be able
to clearly read the advantage in 3.5 minutes or less. This could:
o Jive with group reading exercises – something my fellow team teacher is fond of
doing (but which is often done with clarity in mind). This could re-enforce the clarity
message, but also get peers to follow along in order to assess whether truly
strategic highlighting has taken place.
o Jive with a broader discussion about over-highlighting and the times when raw
“card-count” may be less-important than “useful-warrant-count”.
The next pages have a clean copy of all of the cards from the previous section – but has also added 4
additional cards for consideration. These are placed at the top of the section so as to increase the
chances the students will actually consider adding these cards in to the finalized product.
The Big Picture
Suppose it was 2003 (an era without as much electronically-available evidence) instead of 2013. Further
suppose that you were tasked with originally researching a 1AC.
Truth be told, your 1AC would not be super-strategic until you had a feel for the 1NC’s that you stood to
face… And, it wouldn’t be ideally-strategic until you had a feel for best arguments that the
1NC/1NR/2NR would extend.
Making 1AC distinctions against the BEST negative arguments is important for both maximizing the Aff’s
chances of winning – and also for boosting time management in the 2AC/1AR.
In 2003, you would guess the best negative arguments by reading all of the literature available on both
sides of the question. There were upsides to this – especially in terms of familiarity. But, there were
downsides – as it is time consuming.
In 2013, coaches and teachers might need to artificially mirror that process by having the students really
know both Aff and Neg sides of evidence sets.
This set of exercises is designed to lessen the pitfalls of open-source evidence set – by getting the
students to do some of the 1AC design that was formerly-based upon having read all of the distinctions
in the literature.
The four new cards for students to consider:
( ) Option # 1 – Gonzalez ev
Gonzalez ‘13
Ivet González has been the correspondent for IPS Cuba since 2011.“Cuba Diversifies – But Energy Focus Still on Oil” – Inter-Press Service News
Agency – http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/cuba-diversifies-but-energy-focus-still-on-oil/
In January 2012, the Scarabeo 9 drilling rig was brought to Cuba from Asia to sink an exploratory well
into the seabed in the Gulf of Mexico. Cuba estimates that there could be up to 20 billion barrels of oil
reserves in a 112,000-square kilometre area, although the United States projects a total of about five
billion barrels. But in November, Cuba’s Ministry of Basic Industry announced that the rig would be
removed from Cuba, after three failed attempts to find a commercially viable well, financed by PDVSA,
Spain’s Repsol, PC Gulf – a subsidiary of Malaysia’s Petronas – and Gazpromneft of Russia. After this
harsh blow, Cupet reported that the Moscow-based firm Zarubezhneft would explore for oil off northcentral Cuba using the Norwegian-owned Songa Mercur drilling platform. The Russian state-run
company is drilling a 6,500-metre well in an endeavour that is expected to take six months. The Cuban
government has not lost hope that the country will manage to become self-sufficient in energy. In
another important development zone, around the port of El Mariel in the province of Artemisa,
bordering Havana, the plan is to create a support base for future oil industry activity. But the need to
diversify the energy supply is increasingly seen as a priority in Cuba’s current economic reform process.
( ) Option # 2 – Chapman ev
Chapman ‘13
Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune. Reason Magazine – April 15th – “It's Time to End the U.S. Embargo of
Cuba” – http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/15/its-time-to-end-the-us-embargo-of-cuba
The communist regime in Cuba was just about to come tumbling down, ending decades of dictatorship
and opening the way for freedom and democracy. But before that could happen, Jay-Z and Beyonce
took a trip to the island. So Cuba's despotism can expect to survive another 50 years. Well, maybe I
exaggerate. It's just possible that the musical couple's presence or absence was utterly irrelevant to
Cuba's future. Americans have somewhat less control over the island than we like to imagine. The U.S.
embargo of Cuba has been in effect since 1962, with no end in sight. Fidel Castro's government has
somehow managed to outlast the Soviet Union, Montgomery Ward, rotary-dial telephones and 10
American presidents. The boycott adheres to the stubborn logic of governmental action. It was created
to solve a problem: the existence of a communist government 90 miles off our shores. It failed to solve
that problem. But its failure is taken as proof of its everlasting necessity. If there is any lesson to be
drawn from this dismal experience, though, it's that the economic quarantine has been either 1) grossly
ineffectual or 2) positively helpful to the regime. The first would not be surprising, if only because
economic sanctions almost never work. Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Nope. Iran? Still waiting. North
Korea? Don't make me laugh. What makes this embargo even less promising is that we have so little
help in trying to apply the squeeze. Nearly 200 countries allow trade with Cuba. Tourists from Canada
and Europe flock there in search of beaches, nightlife and Havana cigars, bringing hard currency with
them. So even if starving the country into submission could work, Cuba hasn't starved and won't
anytime soon. Nor is it implausible to suspect that the boycott has been the best thing that ever
happened to the Castro brothers, providing them a scapegoat for the nation's many economic ills. The
implacable hostility of the Yankee imperialists also serves to align Cuban nationalism with Cuban
communism. Even Cubans who don't like Castro may not relish being told what to do by the superpower
next door.
( ) Option # 3 – the 2nd Mittermeier option
Mittermeier ‘11
(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological
Anthropology and as conducted fieldwork for over 30 years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations and
he is considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book
Biodiversity Hotspots – F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011 –
available at: http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)
Global changes, from habitat loss and invasive species to anthropogenic climate change, have initiated
the sixth great mass extinction event in Earth’s history. As species become threatened and vanish, so too
do the broader ecosystems and myriad benefits to human well-being that depend upon biodiversity.
Bringing an end to global biodiversity loss requires that limited available resources be guided to those
regions that need it most. The biodiversity hotspots do this based on the conservation planning
principles of irreplaceability and vulnerability. Here, we review the development of the hotspots over
the past two decades and present an analysis of their biodiversity, updated to the current set of 35
regions. We then discuss past and future efforts needed to conserve them, sustaining their fundamental
role both as the home of a substantial fraction of global biodiversity and as the ultimate source of many
ecosystem services upon which humanity depends.
( ) Option #4 – the Tamayo ev
Tamayo ‘13
(Juan – Writer at The Miami Herald. Past Experience Andean Bureau Chief at Miami Herald Caribbean Correspondent at Miami Herald Foreign
Editor at Miami Herald. Award-winning journalist with more than 25 years of experience as foreign correspondent and editor with The Miami
Herald, focusing on Latin America - especially Cuba - as well as the Middle East and Europe. Proven writer, editor and analyst, with contacts
around the world. Miami Herald – Friday, 05.31.13 http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/31/3424471/russian-oil-companysuspends.html#storylink=cpy)
A Russian state oil company drilling off Cuba’s northern shores has reportedly confirmed that it is
temporarily halting its exploration — the fourth disappointment for Cuba’s dreams of energy selfsufficiency in less than two years. The announcement by Zarubezhneft signaled an end to the only active
exploration program on the island, which now relies on highly subsidized oil from the beleaguered
Venezuelan government of President Nicolas Maduro. Zarubezhneft confirmed this week that it was
halting work due to “geological” problems but added that it will resume its exploration next year, the
Reuters news agency reported Thursday in a dispatch from Havana. The Russians withdrawal had been
expected because the Norwegian company that owns the drilling platform they have been leasing, the
Songa Mercur, already had announced that it would be leaving Cuban waters in July for another
contract. Zarubezhneft’s confirmation, nevertheless, signals “another disappointment” for Cuba’s
dreams of finding oil in its waters, said Jorge Pinon, a Cuba energy expert at the University of Texas in
Austin. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that Cuba’s offshore waters have “significant
undiscovered conventional oil potential” — between 4.6 billion and 9.3 billion barrels. Cuban officials
estimate the potential reserves at 20 billion. “This is the second geological area in Cuba that … seemed
to be promising,” Pinon said of Zarubezhneft’s exploration block. But finding the oil means “you have to
go into your pocket to drill exploratory wells.” Spain’s Repsol oil company spent $100 million in the early
part of 2012 unsuccessfully exploring with the Scarabeo 9 drilling platform, especially built in China to
avoid the restrictions of the U.S. embargo, in deep waters northwest of Havana. Petronas of Malaysia,
Russia’s Gazprom and Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) later leased the Scarabeo platform but also
struck out, and the rig left Cuban waters at the end of last year. Zarubezhneft then gave it a try, leasing
the Songa Mercur to explore waters not as deep and east of Havana starting late last year. Neighboring
Bahamas also has expressed interest in that area, but the Russians also drilled a dry hole. The Russians
are considered likely to meet their promise to return next year because President Vladimir Putin’s
government has been pushing hard to warm up political and commercial ties with Moscow’s one-time
allies in Havana. Cuba’s oil explorations have caused concern among U.S. environmentalists and tourism
officials that any spills would impact the entire Eastern Seaboard, from the Florida Keys to Cape Cod in
Massachusetts. Supporters of improving U.S. relations with Cuba argued that Washington should allow
American oil firms to get a piece of the potential profits. The U.S. embargo adds about 20 percent to
that island’s exploration costs, according to Cuban officials.
A clean copy of the previous set of cards starts here
( ) LaGesse ev
LaGesse ‘12
David LaGesse reporter, with recent articles that have appeared in National Geographic, Money, and most frequently in U.S. News & World
Report – National Geographic News – November 19, 2012 – internally quoting Jorge Piñon, a former president of Amoco Oil Latin America (now
part of BP) and an expert on Cuba's energy sector who is now a research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin.–
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/11/121119-cuba-oil-quest/
But an energy-poor Cuba also has its risks. One of the chief concerns has been over the danger of an
accident as Cuba pursues its search for oil, so close to Florida's coastline, at times in the brisk currents of
the straits, and without U.S. industry expertise on safety. The worries led to a remarkable series of
meetings among environmentalists, Cuban officials, and even U.S government officials over several
years. Conferences organized by groups like the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and its
counterparts in Cuba have taken place in the Bahamas, Mexico City, and elsewhere. The meetings
included other countries in the region to diminish political backlash, though observers say the primary
goal was to bring together U.S. and Cuban officials. EDF led a delegation last year to Cuba, where it has
worked for more than a decade with Cuban scientists on shared environmental concerns. The visitors
included former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator William Reilly, who co-chaired the
national commission that investigated BP's 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster and spill of nearly 5 million
barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico. (Related Quiz: "How Much Do You Know About the Gulf Oil
Spill?") They discussed Cuba's exploration plans and shared information on the risks. "We've found
world-class science in all our interactions with the Cubans," said Douglas Rader, EDF's chief oceans
scientist. He said, however, that the embargo has left Cubans with insufficient resources and
inexperience with high-tech gear. Although the United States and Cuba have no formal diplomatic
relations, sources say government officials have made low-profile efforts to prepare for a potential
problem. But the two nations still lack an agreement on how to manage response to a drilling disaster,
said Robert Muse, a Washington attorney and expert on licensing under the embargo. That lessens the
chance of a coordinated response of the sort that was crucial to containing damage from the Deepwater
Horizon spill, he said. "There's a need to get over yesterday's politics," said Rader. "It's time to make
sure we're all in a position to respond to the next event, wherever it is." In addition to the
environmental risks of Cuba going it alone, there are the political risks. Piñon, at the University of Texas,
said success in deepwater could have helped Cuba spring free of Venezuela's influence as the time nears
for the Castro brothers to give up power. Raúl Castro, who took over in 2008 for ailing brother Fidel,
now 86, is himself 81 years old. At a potentially crucial time of transition, the influence of Venezuela's
outspoken leftist president Hugo Chávez could thwart moves by Cuba away from its state-dominated
economy or toward warmer relations with the United States, said Piñon. Chávez's reelection to a sixyear term last month keeps the Venezuelan oil flowing to Cuba for the foreseeable future. But it was
clear in Havana that the nation's energy lifeline hung for a time on the outcome of this year's
Venezuelan election. (Chávez's opponent, Henrique Capriles Radonski, complained the deal with Cuba
was sapping Venezuela's economy, sending oil worth more than $4 billion a year to the island, while
Venezuela was receiving only $800 million per year in medical and social services in return.) So Cuba is
determined to continue exploring. Its latest partner, Russia's Zarubezhneft, is expected to begin drilling
this month in perhaps 1,000 feet of water, about 200 miles east of Havana. Piñon said the shallow water
holds less promise for a major find. But that doesn't mean Cuba will give up trying.
( ) Helman ev
Helman ‘11
Christopher Helman – Forbes Staff: Southwest Bureau covering Houston, the US energy capital – Forbes – “U.S. Should Drop Cuba Embargo For
Oil Exploration” – December 12th – http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/12/12/u-s-should-drop-cuba-embargo-for-oilexploration/
In a few months Spanish oil company Repsol will start drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba, in a spot just
70 miles south of Key West. Soon Repsol–and its JV partners Norway’s Statoil and India’s ONGC–will be
joined by rigs from PetroVietnam, Malaysia’s Petronas and Venezuela’s PDVSA. But you won’t see any
U.S. companies there. Inexplicably, the U.S. maintains its economic embargo against the Castro regime.
This wrong-headed policy represents a dangerous threat to the environment and a huge missed
opportunity to the U.S. oil industry. The U.S. embargo will do nothing to prevent oil drilling from taking
place in Cuban waters. But it will prevent that work from being done by the most experienced
companies with the highest-quality equipment. Norway’s Statoil is a proven operator with a long history
in the North Sea and the Gulf. The rest of those companies are just getting started offshore. A group of
U.S. lawmakers in September urged Repsol (ticker: REPYY.PK) to call off its Cuba plans or face the threat
of U.S. lawsuits. Repsol wisely called that bluff. At least the Obama administration is doing something to
ensure that Repsol’s drilling rig is up to snuff. According to an excellent article from Bloomberg today,
Repsol’s Chinese-built Scarabeo 9 rig will soon by boarded by four U.S. inspectors (two from the Coast
Guard, two from the Dept. of Interior) who will do what they can to check out the rig and watch some
drills. But, according to the article, there will be real limits to what the inspectors can inspect. They
won’t get to check the rig’s all-important blowout preventor, or the well casing or drilling fluids that are
to be used. Though the U.S. inspectors will discuss any concerns they have with Repsol, they will have no
enforcement authority. Although the offshore industry’s best service companies and parts
manufacturers are right here on the U.S. Gulf coast, Repsol will have to train its people and scrounge for
spare parts from the rest of the world.
( ) Bolstad ev
Bolstad ‘12
Erika Bolstad is a reporter who covers Washington for the Anchorage Daily News, the Idaho Statesman and McClatchy
Newspapers. This evidence internally quotes Lee Hunt, the former president of the International Association of Drilling
Contractors. Hunt, in this instance, is arguably not biased in favor of drilling, as he is speaking to safety and clean-up regimes
and he is speaking before a liberal think-tank in favor of human rights – McClatchy Newspapers – May 10, 2012 –
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/10/148433/cuba-embargo-could-threaten-oil.html#.UaoUWpyADq0
The 50-year-old U.S. embargo of Cuba is getting in the way of safety when it comes to deepwater drilling
in Cuban waters, an expert on the communist country’s offshore drilling activity said Thursday. Lee
Hunt, the former president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, warned that Cold
War-era economic sanctions threaten not only Florida’s economy and environment but that of Cuba,
too, in the event of a major disaster on the scale of 2010’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The worst-case
scenario is "state-sponsored chaos at a disaster site," Hunt said during an event sponsored by the Center
for International Policy, a Washington think tank that advocates for a foreign policy based on human
rights. The U.S. Coast Guard has extensive response plans, as does the state of Florida. But Hunt said he
would give prevention efforts an "F" grade. He likened the work to stocking body bags for a plane crash
– but not training pilots to fly safely or to maintain aircraft properly. "We’re getting ready for what will
inevitably happen if we don’t take the right proactive steps," Hunt said. His warning and that of other
experts came as the Spanish oil company Repsol is about to tap an offshore reservoir beneath 5,600 feet
of seawater and about 14,000 feet of rock. The company, the first of many set to drill for oil off Cuba’s
coast, is working just 77 nautical miles from Key West. Workers are about a week from completing their
drilling and are beginning the technically demanding phase of capping the well and preparing it for
possible production, the panelists at the event said. Former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief
William Reilly, who along with former Florida Sen. Bob Graham co-chaired the presidential commission
that examined BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill, said that in his most recent visit to Cuba he was reassured
that Repsol was moving slowly in Cuban waters to avoid any surprises. Dan Whittle of the Environmental
Defense Fund said that in his visits to Cuba, well-thumbed copies of the commission’s report looked as
though they were "read even more in Havana than here." Reilly also noted that Cuban officials are
regular readers of daily bulletins from U.S. agencies on U.S. oil drilling regulations. He said he urged
them to follow Mexican offshore guidelines – which he said are based on U.S. rules. "Nobody is
predicting a catastrophe in association with anything that the Cubans are overseeing," Reilly said. "In
every way, the Cuban approach to this is responsible, careful and attentive to the risks that they know
they’re undertaking." "Nevertheless, should there be a need for a response . . . the United States
government has not interpreted its sanctions policy in a way that would clearly make available in
advance the kind of technologies that would be required," Reilly said.
( ) Stephens ev
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
The BP disaster highlights the needs for a timely response to spills, the containment of damage, and
clean-up. There were approximately eight rigs capable of drilling relief wells to the depth of Macondo
that were available in the Gulf. If the blow-out occurred in Cuban territorial water, the embargo would
not allow rigs capable of drilling relief wells to be contracted by the operator (Repsol or CUPET, in the
first instance). Companies under the current rules cannot hire a U.S. firm to drill a relief well. In fact,
legislation 50 introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2010 would have penalized such activities under The
Helms-Burton Act. 51 Of greater risk and concern, however, is that spills are often more likely because
of hurricane activity prevalent in the Gulf, and are exacerbated by the role hurricanes play in spreading
oil after a spill. 52 In the event of a spill, were assistance from U.S. firms permitted, relief would take 24–
48 hours to arrive on scene. Barring their participation, however, it would take 30–50 days for help to
arrive from Brazil, Northern Europe, Africa, or S.E. Asia. In the case of the BP spill, as Lee Hunt said,
“Admiral Landry 53 (8th Coast Guard District Commander) had personnel 24 hours x 7 days a week on
phones to get booms; can Repsol or any subsequent operator do that?” 54 OFAC, the Treasury
Department office that administers and enforces trade sanctions, has authority to issue licenses on an
emergency basis, but the BP spill shows that the early, critical response needed would be made slower
by the time required to procure licenses. 55 The Obama administration argues that some firms are precleared to respond. But experts say the current scheme makes it impossible to pre-clear the correct
technology, and that much more needs to be done—and can be done—under current law.
( ) Zakaria ev
Zakaria ‘11
Fareed Rafiq Zakaria is a journalist and author. From 2000 to 2010, he was a columnist for Newsweek and editor of Newsweek International. In
2010 he became editor-at-large of Time. He is the host of CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS, Global Public Square. He is also a frequent commentator
and author about issues related to international relations, trade, and American foreign policy – “Why our Cuba embargo could lead to another
Gulf oil disaster” – CNN: Global Public Square Blogs – 9-19-11 – http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/19/why-our-cuba-policycould-lead-to-another-gulf-oil-spill/
Can you remember what explosive crisis America and the world was fixated on last summer? It wasn't
the deficit, jobs or Europe. It was an oil disaster. Remember the BP spill? Tons of crude gushing into the
Gulf of Mexico? Well, in the weeks and months that followed, there was a lot of discussion about how to
make sure it didn't happen again. But what struck me this week is that we have a new dangerous drilling
zone right on our doorstep - Cuba. Estimates suggest that the island nation has reserves of anywhere
from 5 billion to 20 billion barrels of oil. The high end of those estimates would put Cuba among the top
dozen oil producers in the world. Predictably, there's a global scramble for Havana. A Chineseconstructed drilling rig is owned by an Italian oil company and is on its way to Cuban waters. Spain's
Repsol, Norway's Statoil and India's ONGC will use the 53,000 ton rig to explore for oil. Petro giants from
Brazil, Venezuela, Malaysia and Vietnam are also swooping in. Of course, we can't partake because we
don't trade with Cuba. But what about at least making sure there are some safety procedures that are
followed that would protect the American coastline? You see at 5,500 feet below sea level, these oil rigs
off Cuba will go even deeper than the Deepwater Horizon rig that blew up on our coast last year, and
the coast of Florida, remember, is just 60 miles away from Cuban waters. What happens if there's
another oil spill? Will it be easy and quick to clean up? No. You see, the nearest and best experts on
safety procedures and dealing with oil spills are all American, but we are forbidden by our laws from
being involved in any way with Cuba. Our trade embargo on Cuba not only prevents us from doing
business with our neighbor but it also bars us from sending equipment and expertise to help even in a
crisis. So, if there is an explosion, we will watch while the waters of the Gulf Coast get polluted. Now,
this is obviously a worst case hypothetical, but it's precisely the kind of danger we should plan for and
one we can easily protect against if we were allowed to have any dealings with Cuba. This whole mess is
an allegory for a larger problem. We imposed an embargo on Cuba at the height of the Cold War, 52
years ago, when we were worried about Soviet expansion and the spread of communism. Well, there is
no more Soviet Union, and I don't think there's a person in the world who believes America could be
infected by Cuban communism today. But the antique policies remain - antique and failed policies. They
were designed, you recall, to force regime change in Cuba. Well, the Castros have thrived for five
decades, using American hostility as a badge of Cuban nationalism. All the embargo has done is to
weaken the Cuban people, keep them impoverished and cut them off from the world.
( ) Almeida ev
Almeida ‘12
Rob Almeida is Partner/CMO at gCaptain. He graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1999 with a B.S in Naval Architecture and spent 6.5
years on active duty as a Surface Warfare Officer. He worked for a year as a Roughneck/Rig Manager trainee on board the drillship Discoverer
Americas. May 18th – http://gcaptain.com/drilling-cuba-embargo-badly/
In short however, Cuba’s access to containment systems, offshore technology, and spill response
equipment is severely restricted by the US embargo, yet if a disaster occurs offshore, not only will Cuban
ecosystems be severely impacted, but those of the Florida Keys, and US East Coast. If disaster strikes
offshore Cuba, US citizens will have nobody else to blame except the US Government because outdated
policies are impacting the ability to prepare sufficiently for real-life environmental threats. Considering
Cuba waters are home to the highest concentration of biodiversity in the region and is a spawning
ground for fish populations that migrate north into US waters, a Cuban oil spill could inflict
unprecedented environmental devastation if not planned for in advance.
( ) Mittermeier ev
Mittermeier ‘11
(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological
Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30
years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations. He is the President of Conservation International and he is
considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book
Biodiversity Hotspots – F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. This
evidence also internally references Norman Myers, a very famous British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity. available at:
http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)
Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is irreversible. Human activities
have elevated the rate of species extinctions to a thousand or more times the natural background rate
(Pimm et al. 1995). What are the consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost
opportunity for future resource use. Scientists have discovered a mere fraction of Earth’s species
(perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the biology of even fewer (Novotny et al. 2002).
As species vanish, so too does the health security of every human. Earth’s species are a vast genetic
storehouse that may harbor a cure for cancer, malaria, or the next new pathogen – cures waiting to be
discovered. Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all commercial
medicines – even more in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein 2008). Natural forms, processes,
and ecosystems provide blueprints and inspiration for a growing array of new materials, energy sources,
hi-tech devices, and other innovations (Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been compared to
burning down the world’s libraries without knowing the content of 90% or more of the books. With loss
of species, we lose the ultimate source of our crops and the genes we use to improve agricultural
resilience, the inspiration for manufactured products, and the basis of the structure and function of the
ecosystems that support humans and all life on Earth (McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond material
welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency, and freedom of choices and
actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural,
spiritual, and moral costs inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake,
and wild plants and animals are integral to the fabric of all the world’s cultures (Wilson 1984). The road
to extinction is made even more perilous to people by the loss of the broader ecosystems that underpin
our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and
mangrove forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage from
tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003
emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East Asia have been directly connected to trade in
wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss, more subtle
but equally damaging, include the deterioration of Earth’s natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in
the past decade alone is estimated to be costing the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009).
Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human communities that depend
on them. For example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer less from the
diseases that plague degraded reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earth’s climate changes, the
roles of species and ecosystems will only increase in their importance to humanity (Turner et al.2009). In
many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about the biodiversity in the place in
which they live. They also depend upon these ecosystems the most – and, broadly speaking, it is these
areas over which they have the most control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important
and that every nation, every region, and every community should do everything possible to conserve
their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities? Extinction is a global
phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. More practically, biodiversity, the
threats to it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast
majority of the global conservation budget – perhaps 90% – originates in and is spent in economically
wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally flexible funds available – in the
hundreds of millions annually – be guided by systematic priorities if we are to move deliberately toward
a global goal of reducing biodiversity loss. The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation is
complex, but can be framed as a single question. Given the choice, where should action toward reducing
the loss of biodiversity be implemented first? The field of conservation planning addresses this question
and revolves around a framework of vulnerability and irreplaceability (Margules and Pressey2000).
Vulnerability measures the risk to the species present in a region – if the species and ecosystems that
are highly threatened are not protected now, we will not get another chance in the future.
Irreplaceability measures the extent to which spatial substitutes exist for securing biodiversity. The
number of species alone is an inadequate indication of conserva-tion priority because several areas can
share the same species. In contrast, areas with high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must
conserve these places because the unique species they contain cannot be saved elsewhere. Put another
way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily concentrated in certain areas, these
areas have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else, and many (but
not all) of these areas are the areas at greatest risk of disappearing because of heavy human impact.
Myers’ seminal paper (Myers1988) was the first application of the principles of irreplaceability and
vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale. Myers described ten tropical forest
“hotspots” on the basis of extraordinary plant endemism and high levels of habitat loss, albeit without
quantitative criteria for the designation of “hotspot” status. A subsequent analysis added eight
additional hotspots, including four from Mediterranean-type ecosystems (Myers 1990).After adopting
hotspots as an institutional blueprint in 1989, Conservation Interna-tional worked with Myers in a first
systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two strict quantitative criteria: to qualify as a hotspot, a
region had to contain at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics ( > 0.5% of the world’s total), and it had
to have 30% or less of its original vegetation (extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These efforts
culminated in an extensive global review (Mittermeier et al.1999) and scientific publication (Myers et
al.2000) that introduced seven new hotspots on the basis of both the better-defined criteria and new
data. A second systematic update (Mittermeier et al.2004) did not change the criteria, but revisited the
set of hotspots based on new data on the distribution of species and threats, as well as genuine changes
in the threat status of these regions. That update redefined several hotspots, such as the Eastern
Afromontane region, and added several others that were suspected hotspots but for which sufficient
data either did not exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists outside of those regions. Sadly,
it uncovered another region – the East Melanesian Islands – which rapid habitat destruction had in a
short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region that failed to meet the “less than 30% of
original vegetation remaining” criterion to a genuine hotspot.
( ) CEPF ev
CEPF ‘10
(quoting Mittermeier -- the same author that establishes the “hotspot” thesis and writes our impact ev. , Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a
primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct
Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. CEPF is the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – “Ecosystem Profile: THE
CARIBBEAN ISLANDS BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT” – Prepared by: BirdLife International in collaboration with: Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust /
Bath University The New York Botanical Garden and with the technical support of: Conservation International-Center for Applied Biodiversity
Science; assistance for this report was offered by 100 international and non-profit organizations. Jan 15th –
http://www.cepf.net/Documents/Final_Caribbean_EP.pdf)
The Caribbean Islands Hotspot is one of the world’s greatest centers of biodiversity and endemism, yet
its biodiversity and the natural services it provides are highly threatened. Although the islands have
protected areas systems, most ar e inadequately managed and important areas lack protection. This
strategy will ensure that CEPF funds are employed in the most effective manner and generate significant
conservation results that not only complement the actions of other stakeholders but also enable
significant expansion of strategic conservation for the benefit of all. Everyone depends on Earth’s
ecosystems and their life-sustaining benefits, such as clean air, fresh water and healthy soils. Founded in
2000, the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) has become a global leader in en abling civil
society to participate in and benefit from conserving some of the world’s most critical ecosystems. CEPF
is a joint initiative of l'Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the Gl obal
Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,
and the World Bank. As one of the founding partners, Conservation International ad ministers the global
program through a CEPF Secretariat. CEPF provides grants for nongovern mental and other private
organizations to help protect biodiversity hotspots, Earth’s most biologically rich and threatened areas.
The convergence of critical areas for conservation with millions of people who are impoverished and
highly dependent on healthy ecosystems is more ev ident in the hotspots than anywhere else. CEPF is
unique among funding mechanisms in th at it focuses on biological areas rather than political boundaries
and examines conservation th reats on a landscape-scale basis. A fundamental purpose of CEPF is to
ensure that civil society is engaged in efforts to conserve biodiversity in the hotspots, and to this end,
CEPF provides ci vil society with an agile and flexible funding mechanism complementing funding
currently available to government agencies. CEPF promotes working alliances among commun ity
groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), government, academic institutions and the private
sector, combining unique capacities and eliminating duplication of efforts for a comprehensive approach
to conservation. CEPF targets trans-boundary cooperation for areas rich of biological value that straddle
national borders or in areas where a regional approach may be more effective than a national approach.
A recent, updated analysis reveals the existence of 34 biodiversity hotspots, each holding at least 1,500
endemic plant species, and having lost at least 70 percent of its original habitat extent (Mittermeier et al
. 2005). The Caribbean islands qualify as one of these global biodiversity hotspots by virtue of their high
endemicity and high degree of threat. The Caribbean Islands Hotspot is exceptionally important for
global biodiversity conservation. The hotspot includes important ecosystems, fro m montane cloud
forests to coral reefs, and supports populations of unique species amounting to at least 2 percent of the
world’s total species.
( ) National Commission ev
National Commission ‘11
Commission is co-chaired by William K. Reilly. Reilly was Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President George H. W.
Bush. He has served as president of World Wildlife Fund, as a founder or advisor to several business ventures, and on many boards of directors.
In 2010, he was appointed by President Barack Obama co-chair of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore
Drilling to investigate the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Report to the President; National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling – January 2011
http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DEEPWATER_ReporttothePresident_FINAL.pdf
Chapters 4 through 7 lay out the results of our investigation in detail, highlighting the crucial issues we
believe must inform policy going forward: the specific engineering and operating choices made in drilling
the Macondo well, the attempts to contain and respond to the oil spill, and the impacts of the spill on
the region’s natural resources, economy, and people—in the context of the progressive degradation of
the Mississippi Delta environment. Chapters 8 through 10 present our recommendations for reforms in
business practices, regulatory oversight, and broader policy concerns. We recognize that the
improvements we advocate all come with costs and all will take time to implement. But inaction, as we
are deeply aware, runs the risk of real costs, too: in more lost lives, in broad damage to the regional
economy and its long-term viability, and in further tens of billions of dollars of avoidable clean-up costs.
Indeed, if the clear challenges are not addressed and another disaster happens, the entire offshore
energy enterprise is threatened—and with it, the nation’s economy and security. We suggest a better
option: build from this tragedy in a way that makes the Gulf more resilient, the country’s energy
supplies more secure, our workers safer, and our cherished natural resources better protected.
Talking points for each of the four new cards
Again, if you need to prod them into discussion, I have included a few possible talking points for each of
the new cards:
The Gonzalez card:
 What is the Scarabeo 9 drilling rig ?...
 Why did it have to be built in Asia ?..
 The strategic appeal of this card is that it arguably proves that Cuba will drill on its own. At a
minimum, it implies Cuba will persevere its in quest to court outside investors – even after
the current wave of failed efforts with non-Cuban oil companies.
 But, is that strategic distinction worth adding this ev into the 1ac ?..
The Chapman card:
 I think the Chapman card is a great way for the class to discuss:
o The pitfalls of unilateral sanctions
o The motivation behind secondary sanctions.
o Why the embargo props-up the Castros and might be counter-productive to its goal
of causing them to be ousted.
 That said, I think the Chapman card is an intentional trap for this exercise. It sounds
rhetorically great, and – for a different Affirmative – might be a wonderful inherency card.
But, it is not specific to oil sanctions failing or causing a spill – and, thus, is probably too
general.
The 2nd Mittermeier card:
 Case in favor:
o A shorter card – and there may be a case in favor of efficiency.
 Case against:
o The warrant as to why “biodiversity checks extinction” is less creative and gives the
2AC less to play with.
The Tamayo ev:
 What is Zarubezhneft ?..
 Is it strategically useful for the Aff to cimply admit that drilling has stopped in the now, but
will resume over time ?...
 What are some other applications of this card (especially in the second-to-last sentence) as
it relates to US-Cuba-Russia relations and Russian involvement in Western Hemisphere ?...
 Is the last line of this evidence Affirmative or Negative ?... “The U.S. embargo adds about 20
percent to that island’s exploration costs, according to Cuban officials.”
Lesson Plan # 4 – Plan writing
Background for this lesson plan
There are two parts to this lesson plan:
First – a guided discussion about the plan texts for Cuban Oil Aff.
Second – the students write their own plan text for a different (hypothetical) Affirmative.
The goal is to generate discussion about:
 Topic Specifics – like The Cuban Democracy Act of 1993 or The Cuban Liberty and
Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996…
 Strategic plan writing in the context of this debate topic – is it better or worse to expressly
lift the embargo ?... How can the Affirmative play with the word “toward” ?... what are the
risks the Aff takes on topicality as they make these adjustments ?....
Lesson Plan – explained
Step One – give/point the students towards the Cuban Oil 1AC (which they may already know at this
stage) and specifically ask them to review the section called “Possible Plan texts”. I have included a copy
of that section below. Ask them to start by reading plan texts Options #1 and #2, but encourage them to
stop there.
Once everyone has finished, start a discussion by asking students “what the difference is between the
two plan texts ?”, and “which one they would choose to read if forced to select between the two ?”.
The goal for step one:
 Is to get them talking and to seek disagreements that represent both sides of the question.
 Is to get them to learn about the idea of “secondary sanctions” (Helms-Burton Act).
 Is to facilitate a discussion about whether it is topical/fair for the Aff to lift secondary
sanctions ?...
 Is the Topicality risk worth the upside of additional solvency (for oil) and the especially
important upside of US signal/relations advantages ?... The goal here should be to get
students to begin thinking about the Reasons to Prefer certain interpretations of the word
“toward”.
 The students could easily veer into other directions – i.e. “what is crude oil” ?.. or “why say
the phrase “Republic of Cuba”… These are all valid discussion points as well. If these threads
linger, keep in mind that that the broader point is to teach the topic and plan writing for
when students write their own Affs – and not necessarily the particulars of oil per se.
Step Two – Resume the same process – asking students to stop after reading plan texts Options #3 and
#4.
What the differences between these two plan texts ?... Which one they would choose to read if forced
to select between the two ?
The goal for step two:
 In this set of plans, we’ve replaced “with Cuba” for “in Cuban waters”. This distinction is
intentional and is designed to spark a discussion about the word “toward”.
 Discussion questions might include:
o Can an Affirmative not work with the Cuban government at all ?... Is it fair for an Aff
to solely – for instance – lift secondary restrictions on Russian firms that want to
drill in Cuban territorial waters ?... What if the same Affirmative did not allow US
firms the same drilling rights ?... What if the Affirmative only had advantage about
US-Russian relations ?... or only had critical advantages about hurting US capitalist
interests ?...
o Alternatively, can the affirmative DO NOTHING WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHY OF CUBA,
but solely work with the Cuban government in an unrelated area. Could – for
instance – the Aff permit US-Cuban joint oil ventures in Asia or Scandinavia ?...
o Lastly – given that Cuba is a socialist/State-owned entity, to what extent does any of
this matter for unique abuse to the Neg ?.. for instance, is it even possible to
cooperate with solely with Cuban energy firms in Asia or Norway ?... wouldn’t those
exchanges necessarily be with the Cuban government to some degree ?.. Does the
abuse kick-in as we begin to envision what could happen for Mexico affirmatives ?..
As a matter of fact, while Cuban “free market reforms” are in flux, Cuba will not
enter into joint ventures on oil without reserving payments from foreign companies
to the Cuban government.
Step Three – Resume the same process – asking students to stop after reading plan texts Options #5 and
#6.
Again, ask the students what to describe the differences between these two plan texts ?... Which one
they would choose to read if forced to select between the two ?..
Before they start to read, you may want to quickly define for them (or have them look-up online) the
two pieces of legislation referenced in the plan text options.
 In this set of plans, the discussions get more strategic. We’ve replaced restrictions with
formal language describing the embargo. (note: The Cuban Democracy Act of 1993 is the
part of the US embargo, as codified by Congress, that basically acts upon domestic entities.
The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 – also known as “Helms-Burton”
strengthened the original embargo by making it apply to foreign companies/parties).
 Discussion questions might include:
o What is The Cuban Democracy Act of 1993 ?...
o What is The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 ?...
o More broadly, what are the upsides and downsides to LIFTING THE EMARGO:
 Aff more clearly-commits to a bigger action than the “restrictions” wordings
of previous plans… This is arguably good because:
 It accesses signal/US image advantages. The rest of the world is
really seeking change to the US embargo, not more ticky-tack
restrictions.
 It allows the Aff to wiggle out of any disads related to changing nonembargo restrictions (say the fines levied by the Treasury
Department).
 On the other hand, this is arguably bad because:
 The aff may want the wiggle room – it might help to permute cplans
that do engage Cuba, but without lifting the controversial embargo.
This comment is advanced for beginning students.
 The Aff may (arguably) be locked-into defending Congress – as both
The Democracy Act and the Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act
would logically be lifted by Congress… There is a basic normal
means cplan discussion that flows from this – but one that’s a shade
different, the Treasury Dept probably could not lift The Democracy
Act (that said, the Judicial Brnach could arguably strike it down).
The broader point is this – do Affirmative want to lift the embargo ?... or economically engage without
lifting it ?...
Step Four – writing their own plan texts for a different Affirmative.
Again, I think we exist in an era where students receive a lot of completed products. This sometimes
means we – as a community of teachers – have failed to teach the art of writing plan texts.
The prior discussion points are designed to get students to think about what strategic rationales might
go into writing a plan text on the Cuban portion of the topic.
In step four, you will ask the students to:
 Suppose a hypothetical Affirmative is solely about oil spills – not oil drilling, extraction, etc.
 What would the upside be to having a more narrow Affirmative centered solely on spills
?...Upsides might include:
o Far less money would flow to the Cuban government – affecting the politics disad
and a variety of disads about how we should not financially help the Castro
brothers.
o Specifically, the plan would be far more popular amongst Florida politicians and
voters. In general, “being nice to Cuba” angers the Cuban exile community and is
(thus) not popular amongst Florida politicians. But, in the instance of an oil spill,
Florida would be greatly affected and it would be a far-easier sell to convince
Floridians to prepare or permit reactions to an oil spill.
 Downsides may include:
o Mild topicality concerns – the less the Affirmative touches of the embargo, the more
the Neg will complain about how they are not “substantially” topical…
o Different topicality concerns – is the Aff “economic” engagement (they probably are
if the restriction is on an oil spill company).
o Harder to get signal advantages – the more of the embargo that’s left in place, the
tougher it will be for the Aff to solve any signal advantage (unless the Aff evidence is
uber-specific to US actions on oil spills).
Present the students with the following parameters:
 reviewing and highlight the evidence set under the header “Possible Solvency Advocates for
an Oil Spill Aff”; and
 knowing that the 1AC plan text is going to be limited to oil spill actions
…. how would they write a plan text ?... and which of the four cards would they use ?... would they use
more than one of them ?... keep in mind that not all possible author recommendations are necessary…
and not all recommendations are clearly topical… and not all are efficiently worded.
Ask each of them to take a few minutes to review the possible Solvency Advocates (and possibly to
review the 1AC contention on oil spills) and then write their wording. Call upon a few on the students to
read their finished plan text SLOWLY (or to display it for the group)… Ask their peers to flow the wording
and see if they disagree or question the wording.
There are little things to discuss here that go into writing a plan during the season:
 Should the “FG” in “USFG” be upper or lower-cased.
 Should the Aff used the formal country title (“Republic of Cuba”)
 Should the Aff touch the embargo ?.. or just touch “restrictions”…
Possible Plan texts for Steps 1-3 of the lesson plan
(Chose a plan text from the menu below. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each option with your
lab leaders).
-----------------------------------------Options #1 and #2 ---------------------------------------------------------
Text – Option # 1:
As they pertain to crude oil reservoirs, the United States federal government should lift its restrictions
that preclude firms from exploring, extracting, refining, importing, or coordinating engineering and
safety protocols with the Republic of Cuba.
Text Option # 2 –
As they pertain to crude oil reservoirs, the United States federal government should lift its restrictions
that preclude United States firms from exploring, extracting, refining, importing, or coordinating
engineering and safety protocols with the Republic of Cuba.
-----------------------------------------Options #3 and # 4 ---------------------------------------------------------
Text Option # 3 –
As they pertain to crude oil reservoirs within the territorial waters of the Republic of Cuba, the United
States federal government should lift its restrictions that preclude firms from engaging in exploration,
extraction, refinement, importation, or coordinated engineering and safety protocols.
Text Option # 4 –
As they pertain to crude oil reservoirs within the territorial waters of the Republic of Cuba, the United
States federal government should lift its restrictions that preclude United States firms from engaging in
exploration, extraction, refinement, importation, or coordinated engineering and safety protocols.
-----------------------------------------Options #5 and #6 ---------------------------------------------------------
Note: the italicized words in the next two plan texts are solely italicized to
foster lab discussions about those particular acts of Legislation.
Text Option # 5 –
As they pertain to crude oil reservoirs, the United States federal government should lift the portions of
The Cuban Democracy Act of 1993 that preclude firms from engaging in exploration, extraction,
refinement, importation, or coordinated engineering and safety protocols.
Text Option # 6 –
As they pertain to crude oil reservoirs, the United States federal government should lift the portions of
The Cuban Democracy Act of 1993 and The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 that
preclude firms from engaging in exploration, extraction, refinement, importation, or coordinated
engineering and safety protocols.
Possible Solvency Advocates for an Oil Spill Aff
( ) Possible solvency advocate # 1
Piñon and Muse ‘10
(Jorge R. Piñon, Associate Director of The University of Texas at Austin Jackson School of Geoscience’s Center for International Energy and
Environmental Policy, Advisor and Member of the Cuba Task Forces at The Brookings Institution and the Council of the Americas, holds a
degree in Economics and a certificate in Latin American Studies from the University of Florida, and Robert L. Muse, lawyer in Washington, D.C.
with substantial experience in U.S. laws relating to Cuba, has testified on legal issues involving Cuba before the Foreign Relations Committee of
the United States Senate, the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Standing Committee of the Canadian House of Commons, the Trade
Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives and the External Economic Relations Committee of the
European Parliament, 2010 (“Coping with the Next Oil Spill: Why U.S.-Cuba Environmental Cooperation is Critical,” Brookings Institution U.S.Cuba Relations Issue Brief No. 2, May, Available Online at
http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/28688/1/Coping%20with%20the%20Next%20Oil%20Spill%20-%20Why%20USCuba%20Environmental%20Cooperation%20is%20Critical.pdf?1, p. 3-4)
The appropriate place for U.S. policymakers to begin is with an expedited identification of all current
regulatory prohibitions on the transfer of the U.S. equipment, technology and personnel to Cuba that
will be needed to combat an oil spill—whether it originates there or here. Once identified, those
regulations should be rescinded or amended, as required.
In particular, the Obama Administration should complete the following actions as soon as possible:
1. Proactive licensing by the Department of Commerce of temporary exports to Cuba of any U.S.
equipment and technology necessary to emergency oil flow suppression, spill containment and cleanup. Examples include the licensing of submersibles and ROVs (remote operated vehicles), as well as
booms and chemical dispersants.
2. The pre-approval of licenses for travel to Cuba by qualified U.S. citizens to contribute to emergency
relief and clean-up efforts. For example, petroleum engineers, environmental specialists and others
should be authorized for such travel.
3. Plans should be made for providing Cuba with the most up-to-date information, including satellite
imagery and predictive models, to assess the potential impact of an oil disaster and to prepare for the
worst eventualities.
4. The U.S. should hold joint exercises with Cuba to coordinate emergency responses, the deployment of
resources and the identification of the specialized oil well technologies and clean-up equipment that will
be needed to be shipped to Cuba in the event of an oil spill. [end page 3]
5. The U.S. should encourage and facilitate scientific exchanges at both government and NGO levels that
will identify the nature and sequencing of effective responses to a marine disaster and the mitigation of
environmental harm.
The President should also instruct the Department of State’s Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) and NOAA to meet with Cuban lead agencies such as the
Transport Ministry’s Dirección de Seguridad e inspección Marítima, and the Science, Technology and
Environment Ministry’s agencia del Medio ambiente. The goal of such meetings should be a bilateral
agreement on the protocols of cooperation needed to respond quickly and effectively to any incident
that threatens either country’s marine and coastal habitats.
The Obama Administration should also facilitate immediate cooperation between U.S. and Cuban
academic and scientific institutions. For example, Texas A&M University’s Harte Research Institute (HRI)
for Gulf of Mexico Studies has a long history of promoting a tri-national approach to understanding the
Gulf of Mexico ecosystem of the United States, Mexico and Cuba. Among their most recent projects is
the Proyecto Costa Noroccidental, a comprehensive multi-year research and conservation program for
Cuba’s Gulf of Mexico Coast undertaken in cooperation with the University of Havana’s Center for
Marine Research.
Another valuable resource available to the Administration is the Environmental Defense Fund which has
worked on a number of projects with Cuba’s Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment in
order to develop cooperative projects and workshops to restore depleted shark populations, protect
shallow and deepwater coral reefs, and manage vulnerable coastal ecosystems such as mangroves and
sea grasses.
In conclusion, it is worth underscoring that the President should use his executive authority to authorize
the above recommended actions now, rather than in the context of an improvised response to a
cataclysmic environmental disaster. Should the Obama Administration fail to act, then Congress should
consider passing legislation authorizing the provision by U.S. citizens and companies to Cuba of the relief
and reconstruction supplies and services necessary to respond to a marine disaster in that country’s
waters and on its shores.
( ) Possible solvency advocate # 2
Lanier ‘13
C. Adam Lanier, J.D. Candidate at the University of North Carolina School of Law, holds a B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill – “In Deepwater: Cuba, Offshore Drilling, and Political Brinkmanship,” North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation
– 38 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 571, Winter, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis
A. Domestic Policy Change
1. Immediate Steps the United States Should Take
Cuba is receptive to the idea of U.S. investment, especially when it comes to offshore drilling. n151
Because the United States is near the drill site and has significant experience with deepwater drilling,
there is a substantial economic interest in allowing private companies to engage in Cuba's drilling
efforts. n152 It is also important to consider the economic impact of a spill. For [*596] example, the
Florida Reef Tract - the world's third-largest barrier reef - generates approximately $ 2 billion in revenue
each year from tourism. n153 This makes up only a fraction of the tourism dollars that Florida receives
each year, yet it supplies the state with 33,000 jobs. n154 Considering the economic benefits and
environmental security that would result from the United States being actively involved in Cuba's drilling
efforts, it makes sense to lift the economic restrictions in a manner provided by the Western
Hemisphere Energy Security Act. n155
To take advantage of this engagement with the Cuban government, the United States should develop a
framework for information-sharing between the two governments. The Center for Democracy in the
Americas suggests that "comprehensive information sharing with the Cuban government [be] standard
operating procedure." n156 This information-sharing could include conducting joint workshops and
conferences on issues of mutual interest, such as offshore drilling, drug trafficking, and immigration. It
has also been suggested that information-sharing include technology sharing. n157 Technology sharing
could include sharing oil spill mapping software with Cuba and providing it with subsea oil spill response
technology, such as dispersants. Finally, U.S. regulatory agencies should engage their Cuban
counterparts on a regular basis rather than attempting to channel all information-sharing through the
U.S. Interests Section in Havana. n158
( ) Possible solvency advocate # 3
Stephens ‘11
Sarah Stephens, Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas—a non-governmental organization devoted to changing U.S.
policy toward the countries of the Americas by basing our relations on mutual respect, fostering dialogue with those governments and
movements with which U.S. policy is at odds, and recognizing positive trends in democracy and governance, 2011 (“As Cuba plans to drill in the
Gulf of Mexico, U.S. policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” Report by the Center for Democracy in the Americas, Available Online
at http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf, p. 1-3)
The U.S. embargo against Cuba, a remnant of the Cold War, is an obstacle to realizing and protecting our
interests in the region. Not only does it prohibit U.S. firms from joining Cuba in efforts to extract its
offshore resources, thus giving the competitive advantage to other foreign firms, but it also denies Cuba
access to U.S. equipment for drilling and environmental protection—an especially troubling outcome in
the wake of the disastrous BP spill. The [end page 1] embargo compels Cuba’s foreign partners to go
through contortions—such as ordering a state of the art drilling rig built in China and sailing it roughly
10,000 miles to Cuban waters—to avoid violating the content limitations imposed by U.S. law.
Most important, due to the failed policy of isolating Cuba, the United States cannot engage in
meaningful environmental cooperation with Cuba while it develops its own energy resources. Our
government cannot even address the threat of potential spills in advance from the frequent hurricane
activity in the Gulf or from technological failures, either of which could put precious and
environmentally sensitive U.S. coastal assets—our waters, our fisheries, our beaches—at great peril.
The risks begin the moment the first drill bit pierces the seabed, and increase from there. Yet, our policy
leaves the Obama administration with limited options:
• It could do nothing.
• It could try to stop Cuba from developing its oil and natural gas, an alternative most likely to fail in an
energy-hungry world, or
• It could agree to dialogue and cooperation with Cuba to ensure that drilling in the Gulf protects our
mutual interests.
Since the 1990s, Cuba has demonstrated a serious commitment to protecting the environment, building
an array of environmental policies, some based on U.S. and Spanish law. But it has no experience
responding to major marine-based spills and, like our country, Cuba has to balance economic and
environmental interests. In this contest, the environmental side will not always prevail.
Against this backdrop, cooperation and engagement between Cuba and the United States is the right
approach, and there is already precedent for it.
During the BP crisis, the U.S. shared information with Cuba about the spill. The administration publicly
declared its willingness to provide limited licenses for U.S. firms to respond to a catastrophe that
threatened Cuba. It also provided visas for Cuban scientists and environmental officials to attend an
important environmental conference in Florida. For its part, Cuba permitted a vessel from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to look [end page 2] for damage in Cuban waters. But these
modest measures, however welcome, are not sufficient, especially in light of Cuba’s imminent plans to
drill.
Under the guise of environmental protection, Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Vern Buchanan, Members
of the U.S. Congress from Florida, introduced bills to impose sanctions on foreign oil companies and U.S.
firms that help Cuba drill for oil, and to punish those foreign firms by denying them the right to drill in
U.S. waters. This legislation would penalize U.S. firms and anger our allies, but not stop Cuba from
drilling, and will make the cooperation to protect our mutual coastal environment more difficult should
problems occur.
Energy policy and environmental protection are classic examples of how the embargo is an abiding
threat to U.S. interests. It should no longer be acceptable to base U.S. foreign policy on the illusion that
sanctions will cause Cuba’s government to collapse, or to try to stop Cuba from developing its oil
resources. Nor should this policy or the political dynamic that sustains it prevent the U.S. from
addressing both the challenges and benefits of Cuba finding meaningful amounts of oil in the Gulf of
Mexico.
The path forward is clear. The Obama administration should use its executive authority to guarantee
that firms with the best equipment and greatest expertise are licensed in advance to fight the effects of
an oil spill. The Treasury Department, which enforces Cuba sanctions, should make clear to the private
sector that efforts to protect drilling safety will not be met with adverse regulatory actions. The U.S.
government should commit to vigorous information sharing with Cuba, and open direct negotiations
with the Cuban government for environmental agreements modeled on cooperation that already exists
with our Canadian and Mexican neighbors.
Most of all, the administration should replace a policy predicated on Cuba failing with a diplomatic
approach that recognizes Cuba’s sovereignty. Only then will our nation be able to respond effectively to
what could become a new chapter in Cuba’s history and ours.
There is little time and much to do before the drilling begins.
( ) Possible solvency advocate # 4
Reilly and Cayten ‘12
William K. Reilly, appointed by President Barack Obama co-chair of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling, served as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President George H. W. Bush, former President of
World Wildlife Fund, holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School, an M.A. in Urban Planning from Columbia University, and an A.B. in History from
Yale University, and Megan Reilly Cayten, holds an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School and a B.A. in History from Yale University, 2012 (“Why
the U.S. should work with Cuba on oil drilling,” Washington Post, February 17th, Available Online at http://articles.washingtonpost.com/201202-17/opinions/35445244_1_blowout-preventer-scarabeo-deepwater-horizon
The Cuban government is overseeing drilling deeper than BP’s Deepwater Horizon well and almost as
close to U.S. shores, but without access to most of the resources, technology, equipment and expertise
essential to prevent and, if needed, to respond to spills. We are deeply familiar with the two largest oil
spills in U.S. history, from the Exxon Valdez in 1989 and following the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion in
2010. In each case, containing and remediating the spill required the mobilization of vast resources from
the federal government, the private sector and local communities.
The Deepwater Horizon spill, 5,000 feet below the ocean’s surface, occurred under the watch of
experienced U.S. regulators, at a well drilled by one of the world’s largest, most experienced oil
companies on one of the world’s most sophisticated drilling rigs. The response effort involved more than
5,000 vessels and is estimated by BP to have cost $42 billion. The International Association of Drilling
Contractors estimates that Cuba has access to less than 5 percent of the resources used in combating
the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
It is fortunate that a company with a good track record is the first to drill off the Cuba coast. Repsol
regularly communicates with U.S. regulators, providing them access to Scarabeo 9 when it was moored
in Trinidad, on its way to Cuba. But Repsol is also hampered by this country’s embargo on business with
Cuba.
The blowout preventer on Scarabeo, for example, was built in the United States — it constitutes the rig’s
maximum 10 percent U.S. content permitted by law. But the company that made it will not commission
or maintain it, nor will it supply replacement parts because it does not have a license to operate in Cuba.
One hopes that Cuban engineers are as ingenious at jury-rigging a blowout preventer as they are with
their old American cars.
Cuban regulators are preparing themselves for the challenge ahead. They have sought guidance from
Norwegian counterparts on the implementation of a regulatory regime known as the safety case, where
risks are rigorously identified and factored into drilling protocols, and they have sent engineers to Brazil
to learn about the deepwater oil industry. They also studied in detail the findings of the Deepwater
Horizon commission and its companion technical report, and they have prepared action responses to
each of the report’s key recommendations, as we learned on a September visit with these officials.
But these regulators are severely hampered by the embargo. They cannot engage in dialogue or share
expertise with their U.S. counterparts. Their engineers can be trained by international companies but
cannot attend training in the United States or be certified by any U.S. organization. The Cuban
government and Repsol have stated their intention to comply with U.S. rules to the best of their
abilities, even though the Cuban government can have no direct contact with our regulators to learn
more about those rules.
The U.S. government can, and should, make available the resources that the organizations involved with
Scarabeo need to do their job well. It should also be prepared, should something go wrong, to protect
the waters and beaches of Florida and the southeast United States from a potential disaster. In the
event of an emergency, the U.S. government would likely do that. But the help might well come too late.
The private sector needs considerable time to ready an effective response. Engineers need to
understand the rig, well characteristics and marine environment. Companies need to prepare detailed
contingency plans and to allocate appropriate equipment. The only capping stack licensed for use in
Cuba in the event of a blowout on the ocean floor, for instance, is in Scotland, a week’s trip away, and
has no licensed vessel or crew. Certain resources may not be available if summoned at the last minute.
The Commerce and Treasury departments have issued some licenses to spill-response providers and are
reviewing others. As welcome as that is, it is not sufficient. The application process and the threat of
very significant fines deter many companies from even considering the prospect. The private sector
needs a clear signal from the executive branch in order to move forward.
Precedents exist for communication between the U.S. and Cuban governments on common interests.
The Coast Guard kept Havana apprised of developments with the Deepwater Horizon spill, at a time
when some feared the gushing oil could foul Cuban waters. Cuban and U.S. officials have shared
information on drug interdiction, immigration and weather, and the United States exports grain and
medical supplies to Cuba. All of this has taken place without an official change in policy since the
embargo was imposed in 1962. The Obama administration has the authority — now, without a change
in law or regulation — to provide a general license to all qualified U.S. companies that express an
interest in helping prevent and respond to a Cuban oil spill.
This is a charged issue, one that many officials might want to avoid in an election year. Some have
proposed further restricting access to U.S. technology for companies working with Cuba, in the hopes
that this might prevent the Cubans from accessing their oil. It is, however, time to face reality. Providing
Repsol and Cuban regulators with access to resources for spill prevention and response will not further
the development of Cuba’s oil and gas industry. That’s already under way. What it will do is help protect
Key West. It is profoundly in the interest of the United States that we get this right.
Lesson Plan # 5
Background for this lesson plan
Have a mini-debate in front of the group over the Saudi Arabian Proliferation Disad.
Thoughts:
 Normally, I prefer to have mini-debates of this sort pre-over an issue that’s more topicspecific. That way, student interest in shining before the class translates into learning the
content that’s most apt to carry-into the season
 That said, I love how this exercise starts to teach:
o Strategy – the 2AC frontline contains an intentional (albeit mild) contradiction over
whether the Aff truly does boost US oil independence.
o Qualifications – the evidence selected is often quoting a lot members of the oil
sector… some of the evidence is quoting folks who are arguably sensationalizing the
risk of Iranian prolif… some of the evidence teaches students to really look at who is
being internally quoted.
o Technique and Selection – Not all 2AC answers are created equal. Some are
stronger than others. This begs the question of 2NC time allocation, as well as 1AR
time allocation.
Lesson Plan – explained
Prior to the speeches:
 Inform the class that, after a brief period of time where everyone gets to read through the
Aff and Neg evidence sets, one student in the class will be asked to be Aff and One student
will be asked to be Neg.
 For context, explain that the 1AC is the Cuban Oil drilling 1AC – and that the 1AC has read
the version of the Aff that appears in the opening HSS starter-packet. The Neg should
assume the 1NC shell has been read – or you could have the 1N read it for the group if you’d
prefer to re-enforce flowing habits.
 Remind them that while there are advantages about Latin American Relations, Oil Spills, etc,
that most of the debate should narrowly be on the questions of:
o The Saudi disad
o Impact calc contained at the top of the disad.
 If you wish, you can select to unhighlight all of the evidence – making the students highlight
it themselves (as they will assuredly want to, in case they’re called upon). This may boost
familiarization.
 Given that the 2AC is basically written already, inform them that they should:
o First – Begin rough preparation assuming they may be called upon to give a 2NC.
o Second – begin rough preparation assuming they may be called upon to give the
subsequent 1AR
 Set a timer for a reasonable amount of prep time for the group to review the Neg materials.
Once prep-time ends:
 Call on one student to be the Aff
 Call on another to be the Neg.
 Inform everyone that they now serve as a judge and that there will not be another iteration
of this specific exercise – so it is worth their time to flow and judge the mini-debate (instead
of to continue to prep).
Speech times are as follows:
 2AC – not set-time – just have the 2A read the frontline at a reasonable pace. This is
important to get the group flowing and in judging mode.
 Cx of the 2A – by the Neg opponent… up tom 2 minutes long.
 Group discussion by the instructor and the student judges (as the neg finalizes prep for the
2NC)
 2NC – up to 5 minutes long…
 Cx of the 2NC – by the Aff opponent… up tom 2 minutes long.
 Group discussion by the instructor and the student judges (as the Aff finalizes prep for the
1AR)
 1AR – up to 2 minutes long
 Group discussion by the instructor and the student judges (as the neg finalizes prep for the
2NR)
 2NR – up to three minutes long.
Possible discussion points
All of these come to mind:
 Should the Aff read cards about “how there’s not a lot of Cuban oil” – or does it contradict
the 1AC advantage about oil dependence ?...
 Are qualifications being debated – specifically in spots where oil officials and ambassadors
are making self-interested statements.
 Is the 1AR reading evidence ?... Are they “ordering” the best lines of attack – or just
extending everything ?...
 What would the student judges have extended if they were Aff ?... where did they think the
Neg was strong ?...
 How was the clarity (verbal communication) in this speech ?...
 Did cross-examination threads work their way into the speeches ?...
 Who is ahead on impact calc ?...
In these exercises, the 1AR nearly-always talks too much at the top of the flow – this creates a “teaching
moment” where students can hopefully see the importance of efficiency (which they sorta get) and
mentally allocating time for each section of the flow (which they NEVER allocate – they all just think
they’ll handle it on the fly and it often creates problems).
Aff Section
Aff Frontline vs. Saudi Disad
( ) Non-unique. Iran prolif coming – makes Saudi prolif inevitable.
Samay Live ‘13
(Samay Live a leading Hindi news portal – this report is internally quoting The Institute for Science and International Security – This same article
is released on Agence France Presse and is basically an international wire release. January 15, 2013 – lexis)
Iran is on track to produce material for at least one nuclear bomb by mid-2014 as sanctions hit its economy
but fail to stop the atomic program, said a US think tank, further adding that Islamic republic could reach
'critical capability' within this time frame without detection by the West.¶ The Institute for Science and
International Security, a private group opposed to nuclear proliferation, called for tougher US economic sanctions against Iran and pressure on
major trading partners to isolate Tehran yesterday.¶ The group looked at Iran's "critical capability,"defined as the point at which the clerical
regime will be able to produce enough weapons-grade uranium or separated plutonium to build one or more bombs before foreign detection.¶
"Based on the current trajectory of Iran's nuclear program, we estimate that Iran could reach this critical capability in mid-2014," the think tank
said in a report.¶ The think tank based its assessment on the growth in Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium and number of centrifuges and what
it described as an uncooperative stance by Tehran toward the UN atomic agency.¶ The
institute said it was "deeply skeptical"
of the potential for preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and painted a dire picture of the
consequences if the regime developed the bomb.¶ The think tank said that a nuclear weapon would "embolden Iranian
aggression and subversion" and questioned whether Iran's leadership, with its "apocalyptic messianism and exaltation of martyrdom," could be
deterred from using a bomb.¶ The report also said that an
Iranian nuclear arsenal could motivate Saudi Arabia to
develop a nuclear program ,fueling proliferation in a region where Israel is the sole,albeit undeclared, state with nuclear weapons.
The United States has championed sanctions aimed at crippling the Iranian economy by cutting off its oil exports,while Israel has not ruled out
the possibility of a military strike on Iran.
( ) No link and No Aff double-bind. Cuban oil can be sufficient to avoid extreme US
energy insecurities without making the Saudis think they’ve lost the US market. The
US consumes a lot of oil.
( ) No link – Saudis not concerned about North American oil boom.
AFP ‘13
[Agence France Presse – “US energy independence idea ‘naive’: Nuaimi,” 05.01.2013, http://thepeninsulaqatar.com/gcc-business/235108-usenergy-independence-idea-%E2%80%98naive%E2%80%99-nuaimi.html]
WASHINGTON: Saudi
Oil Minister Ali bin Ibrahim Al Nuaimi yesterday called the US push for energy
independence “naive,” saying the country will continue to need Middle Eastern oil long into the future.¶
Ali bin Ibrahim said he welcomed the surge in US domestic energy production from shale oil and gas fields,
which he said will add depth and stability to global oil markets.¶ “Newly commercial reserves of shale or tight oil are transforming the energy
industry in America — and that’s great news,” he told an audience of policy makers and academics at the Center for Strategic & International
Studies in Washington. “It
is helping to sustain the US economy and create jobs at a difficult time. I welcome
these new supplies into the global oil market.” he added.¶ On the other hand, he said, it was not realistic to
believe this would help the United States eliminate imports of oil, a goal of some Americans who argue energy
independence is crucial for the country’s security.¶ Despite the domestic production gains, US imports of Middle East
oil in the second half of 2012 were higher than any time since the 1990s, Ali bin Ibrahim said. The United States
“will continue to meet domestic demand by utilising a range of different sources, including from the Middle East. This is simply sound
economics. I believe this talk of ending reliance is a naive, rather simplistic view.” ¶ Ali bin Ibrahim, meanwhile, emphasised
that Saudi Arabia remains able to sustain its reserves at the current 266 billion barrels and said that
could increase, especially if technology for extracting “tight” shale oil and gas improves.¶ But he contradicted comments by another top
Saudi official, former intelligence chief Prince Turki Al Faisal, on Saudi oil development plans.¶ In a speech on Monday at Harvard
University, Turki said Saudi Arabia would increase production capacity to 15 million barrels a day from
the current 12.5m b/d. “Saudi Arabia’s national production management scheme is set to increase total capacity to 15 million barrels
per day and have an export potential of 10 barrels per day by 2020,” Turki said.¶ Ali bin Ibrahim suggested Turki misspoke. “We have no plans”
for that, Naimi said. “We don’t really see a need to build a capacity beyond what we have today.”¶ Experts
say Asia and Iran are
the keys to maintaining a strong - but evolving - US-Saudi Arabia energy relationship. As the United
States produces oil at the highest levels in 20 years thanks to the shale boom, Saudi Arabia’s
confidence in Asian markets could help keep relations between the two countries on track.¶ “The
Saudis don’t see the North American oil boom as a threat , not in the context of the global oil
market,” said a Washington-based energy consultant to governments and businesses. Ali bin Ibrahim said in a speech early
this month in Doha that nobody should fear new oil supplies when global demand is rising, adding
that Asia’s population growth should be a driver for future oil demand. ¶ Saudi Arabia, the main source of global
spare oil production capacity, will be one of the few places with the ability to supply China and other Asian countries. In contrast, extra barrels
from North Dakota and Texas will be consumed in the United States, at least until laws are changed to allow the country’s producers to export
substantial amounts of crude. ¶ The
relationship between Riyadh and Washington may be changing but the two
countries still share important goals on balancing oil markets going forward. One is to keep oil prices from going
too high in order to keep Iran from in check.¶ The United States is trying to choke funds to Tehran’s disputed
nuclear programme through the application of sanctions on its oil sales. High global crude prices could
hurt that effort. Saudi Arabia also does not want Iran to get nuclear weapons and is expected to keep
oil prices stable.¶ “We are still partners but less intimate partners than we once were,” said Chas Freeman, who served as US ambassador
to Saudi Arabia under former president George H W Bush.¶ For decades Saudi Arabia and the United States had a special relationship: the
kingdom provided the United States oil, and the United States provided Saudi Arabia protection against enemies. As Saudi Arabia becomes less
of an important supplier to the United States, the world’s biggest oil consumer, some see that special relationship declining.¶ Even
as
Saudi looks to other markets, it still is the second largest oil exporter to the United States after
Canada, with shipments averaging 1.4 million barrels per day in the first 10 months of last year.
( ) If there is a link, then growing US domestic production should also cause it.
Fox News ‘13
[Fox News, 3/8/13, “¶ 'Secret energy revolution' could hasten end to dependence on foreign oil,”
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/08/secret-energy-revolution-could-hasten-end-to-dependence-on-foreign-oil/#ixzz2W406KHfi]
A wealth of new technologies -- from underwater robots to 3-D scanners to nano-engineered
lubricants -- are transforming the energy exploration industry in ways that will hasten the end of
America’s reliance on Middle East oil. ¶ ¶ That’s the take on America’s “secret energy revolution,” according to a report in the
Washington Guardian. And the proof is in the balance sheets: According to the International Institute for
Strategic Studies, monthly imports of oil peaked in Sept. 2006 at 12.7 million barrels per day and has declined 40
percent since then, to 7.6 million barrels in Nov. 2012.¶ ¶ That’s partly due to falling demand, as the U.S. economy contracted and drivers with
smaller wallets balked at the high price of gas. Cars became more fuel efficient as well, often powered by batteries rather than gas. But it’s also
largely due to the increased production of oil on U.S. shores, the IISS said.¶ ¶ “Rising
production of liquid fuels in the United
States accounts for 60 percent of the fall in U.S. oil imports since 2006 and nearly 100 percent since
2010,” the group reported. If the trend continues, the U.S. could become oil independent in the coming
years, they added.¶ ¶ What’s led to such a surge? An assortment of new technologies and innovative
means to tap the oil trapped in shale rock formations, helping sip every last drop from deep wells
beneath U.S. soil. ¶ ¶ “Nanoengineered materials, underwater robots, side-scanning 3-D sonar, specially engineered lubricants, and
myriad other advances are opening up titanic new supplies of fossil fuels, many of them in unexpected places … perhaps most significantly,
North America,” wrote Vince Beiser in Pacific Standard.¶ ¶ The
problem for domestic oil has never been a lack of
supply, surprisingly. It’s been the inability to tap into that oil, Beiser noted. Fracking is the most high-profile
means of doing so, a method for pumping pressurized, specially treated mud into the dense shale formations that trap oil and gas. Fracking has
brought with it real environmental concerns, however, including charges that it increases the risk of earthquakes and pollutes ground water. ¶ ¶
But there’s no doubt the process succeeds in getting fuel out of the ground. “Fracking is about as popular
with the general public as puppy kicking, but it’s very big business,” Beiser wrote. American shale gas production totaled 320 billion cubic feet
in 2000; in 2011, the number was 7.8 trillion.¶ ¶ That’s by no means the only innovation.¶ ¶ To
hit some of the deepest ocean
wells, Houston’s FMC Technologies wants to move oil production to the bottom of the ocean, with
special undersea robots built to survive the incredible pressure at those depths.¶ ¶ “We are not far from this vision. Maybe 15 years,”
Paulo Couto, a vice president of technology for FMC, told Pacific Standard. Other companies are using chemistry to tweak the mud shot down
pipes into the ground to lubricate the path for drills, and using new means to detect the pockets of oil that do lie nearby. ¶ ¶ “The
dynamics
of abundant fuel supplies will be a catalyst for major geo-political shifts, ” the Washington Guardian wrote.
( ) Cuban reserves too small to displace Mid-East Oil
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 2
At present Cuba
possesses an estimated 4.6 million barrels of oil and 9.3 TFC (total final consumption) of natural gas in
North Cuba Basin. 4 This is approximately half of the estimated 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable crude oil in the
Alaska Natural Wildlife Reserve. If viewed in strictly instrumental terms— namely, increasing the pool of potential
imports to the U.S. market by accessing Cuban oil and ethanol holdings— Cuba’s oil represents little in the way of
absolute material gain to the U.S. energy supply. But the possibility of energy cooperation between the United States and Cuba
offers significant relative gains connected to the potential for developing production-sharing agreements, promoting the transfer of state-oftheart technology and foreign direct investment, and increasing opportunities for the development of joint-venture partnerships, and scientifictechnical exchanges.
( ) US-Saudi ties unbreakable – oil not key.
Smith ‘13
James B. Smith is the United States Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Prior to his appointment, Ambassador Smith had served in a
variety of executive positions with Raytheon Company involving corporate strategic planning, aircraft manufacturing, and international business
development. Smith was a distinguished graduate of the United States Air Force Academy’s Class of 1974 and received the Richard I. Bong
award as the Outstanding Cadet in Military History. He received his Masters in History from Indiana University in 1975, and is also a
distinguished graduate from the Naval War College, the Air Command and Staff College and the National War College. Smith spent a 28 year
career in the United States Air Force – “US-Saudi relations: Eighty years as partners” – Arab News – 20 March 2013 –
http://www.arabnews.com/news/445436
FOR over 80 years the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have enjoyed a strong relationship
based on mutual respect and common interests. Diplomatic relations were established in 1933. That same year Standard Oil of
California signed an oil concession agreement with Saudi Arabia. That initial partnership, of course, developed into the largest oil company in
the world in terms of crude oil production and exports; Saudi Aramco.¶ As Secretary Kerry’s recent visit shows, our close relationship continues
to today. The United States and Saudi Arabia share a common concern for regional security and stabilizing the global oil markets. We also share
a charitable impulse to aid the less fortunate, as our foreign assistance efforts, both public and private, demonstrate. Two key pillars of our
relationship are economics and commerce. Trade, investment, education, and tourism all help deepen the relationship between our two
countries, because they are not just about government to government relationships, but about people to people relationships. ¶ The US-Saudi
trade relationship has grown considerably over the past few years with our total two-way trade last year reaching almost $ 74 billion. In
President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address, he set an ambitious goal of doubling US exports from their level in 2009. We are well on
our way toward achieving that goal with Saudi Arabia, with the value of US non-defense exports to Saudi Arabia increasing by almost 68
percent. From Saudi Arabia’s perspective, Saudi exports to the United States have more than doubled during the same period. Our services
trade also continues to expand. In 2010, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the US exported over $ 5 billion in education,
business, and professional consulting services to Saudi Arabia.¶ As might be expected, oil remains an important part of our bilateral economic
relationship. With Saudi Arabia exporting between a million and a million and a half barrels per day to the United States, it is by far Saudi’s
largest export to our country; just as our largest non-defense export to Saudi Arabia remains motor vehicles. However, our
has developed far beyond oil
chemicals, machinery,
and automobiles. Saudi
relationship
Arabia is an important market for US aircraft,
ag riculture, and computer products . In addition to oil, some of our largest imports from
Saudi Arabia include chemicals, metals and textiles.
Another measure of how much our bilateral trade relationship is
growing is the number of new US exporters to Saudi Arabia. Last year over 150 companies entered the Saudi market for the first time.
( ) Saudi Arabia will never prolif.
Lippman ‘8
[Thomas W. Lippman is a former Middle East correspondent and a diplomatic and national security reporter for The Washington Post (19661999, 2003). He covered the war in Iraq for The Washington Post’s online edition in 2003. He appears frequently on radio and television as a
commentator on Middle Eastern affairs. He is the author of several books about the Middle East and American foreign policy, including Inside
the Mirage: America’s Fragile Partnership with Saudi Arabia (2004), Madeleine Albright and the New American Diplomacy (2000), Egypt After
Nasser (1989) and Understanding Islam (1995). He has also written on these subjects for several magazines, including The Middle East Journal,
SAIS Review and US News and World Report. His latest book on the history of US engagement in Saudi Arabia and US-Saudi relations will be
published in January 2008. Lippman is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, “Nuclear Weapons and Saudi Strategy” The Middle
East Institute, http://www.mei.edu/Portals/0/Publications/nuclear-weapons-saudi-strategy.pdf]
It is widely believed among policymakers and strategic analysts in Washington and in many Middle Eastern capitals that if Iran acquires nuclear
weapons, Saudi Arabia will feel compelled to do the same. In some ways this belief makes sense because Saudi Arabia is as vulnerable as it is
rich, and it has long felt threatened by the revolutionary ascendancy of its Shi‘ite rival across the Gulf. Moreover, some senior Saudi officials
have said privately that their country’s hand would be forced if it became known beyond doubt that Iran had become nuclear weapons capable.
The publication in late 2007 of portions of a US National Intelligence Estimate reporting that Iran had abandoned a program to weaponize
nuclear devices in 2003 did not put an end to the speculation about a Saudi Arabian response; the NIE made clear that Iran was continuing its
effort to master the uranium enrichment process, and could resume a weapons program on short notice. It is far from certain,
however, that Saudi Arabia would wish to acquire its own nuclear arsenal or that it is capable of
doing so. There are compelling reasons why Saudi Arabia would not undertake an effort to develop or
acquire nuclear weapons, even in the unlikely event that Iran achieves a stockpile and uses this arsenal to threaten
the Kingdom. Money is not an issue — if destitute North Korea can develop nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia surely has the resources to
pursue such a program. In the fall of 2007, the Saudis reported a budget surplus of $77 billion, and with oil prices above $90 a barrel, Riyadh is
flush with cash. But the acquisition or development of nuclear weapons would be provocative,
destabilizing, controversial and extremely difficult for Saudi Arabia, and ultimately would likely
weaken the kingdom rather than strengthen it. Such a course would be directly contrary to the
Kingdom’s longstanding stated goal of making the entire Middle East a nuclear weapons free
zone. According to Sultan bin ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, the Defense Minister and Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons by their nature
contravene the tenets of Islam. Pursuing nuclear weapons would be a flagrant violation of Saudi
Arabia’s commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and would surely cause a serious
breach with the United States. Saudi Arabia lacks the industrial and technological base to develop
such weapons on its own. An attempt to acquire nuclear weapons by purchasing them, perhaps from
Pakistan, would launch Saudi Arabia on a dangerously inflammatory trajectory that could destabilize
the entire region, which Saudi Arabia’s leaders know would not be in their country’s best interests. The
Saudis always prefer stability to turmoil.
( ) Mid-East war especially unlikely
Fettweis ‘7
(Christopher Fettweis, Asst Prof Poli Sci – Tulane, Asst Prof National Security Affairs – US Naval War College, “On the Consequences of Failure in
Iraq,” Survival, Vol. 49, Iss. 4, December, p. 83 – 98)
Without the US presence, a second argument goes, nothing would prevent Sunni-Shia violence from sweeping into every country where the
religious divide exists. A
Sunni bloc with centres in Riyadh and Cairo might face a Shia bloc headquartered in Tehran, both of which
would face enormous pressure from their own people to fight proxy wars across the region. In addition to intra-Muslim
civil war, cross-border warfare could not be ruled out. Jordan might be the first to send troops into Iraq to secure its own
border; once the dam breaks, Iran, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia might follow suit. The Middle East has no shortage of
rivalries, any of which might descend into direct conflict after a destabilising US withdrawal. In the worst case, Iran might emerge as the
regional hegemon, able to bully and blackmail its neighbours with its new nuclear arsenal. Saudi Arabia and Egypt would soon demand suitable
deterrents of their own, and a
nuclear arms race would envelop the region. Once again, however, none of these
outcomes is particularly likely.¶ Wider war¶ No matter what the outcome in Iraq, the region is not likely to
devolve into chaos. Although it might seem counter-intuitive, by most traditional measures the Middle East is
very stable. Continuous, uninterrupted governance is the norm, not the exception; most Middle East regimes
have been in power for decades. Its monarchies, from Morocco to Jordan to every Gulf state, have generally been in
power since these countries gained independence. In Egypt Hosni Mubarak has ruled for almost three decades, and
Muammar Gadhafi in Libya for almost four. The region's autocrats have been more likely to die quiet, natural deaths
than meet the hangman or post-coup firing squads. Saddam's rather unpredictable regime, which attacked its neighbours
twice, was one of the few exceptions to this pattern of stability, and he met an end unusual for the modern Middle East. Its
regimes have survived potentially destabilising shocks before, and they would be likely to do so again.¶
The region actually experiences very little cross-border warfare, and even less since the end of the Cold War. Saddam again
provided an exception, as did the Israelis, with their adventures in Lebanon. Israel fought four wars with neighbouring states in the
first 25 years of its existence, but none in the 34 years since. Vicious civil wars that once engulfed Lebanon and
Algeria have gone quiet, and its ethnic conflicts do not make the region particularly unique.¶ The biggest risk of an American
withdrawal is intensified civil war in Iraq rather than regional conflagration. Iraq's neighbours will likely not prove eager to
fight each other to determine who gets to be the next country to spend itself into penury propping up an unpopular puppet regime next
door. As
much as the Saudis and Iranians may threaten to intervene on behalf of their co-religionists, they have
shown no eagerness to replace the counter-insurgency role that American troops play today. If the United States, with
its remarkable military and unlimited resources, could not bring about its desired solutions in Iraq, why would any other country think it could
do so?17¶ Common
interest, not the presence of the US military, provides the ultimate foundation for stability. All
ruling regimes in the Middle East share a common (and understandable) fear of instability. It is the interest of
every actor - the Iraqis, their neighbours and the rest of the world - to see a stable, functioning government emerge in Iraq. If
the United States were to withdraw, increased regional cooperation to address that common interest is far more likely
than outright warfare.
Extensions – Iran Prolif makes Saudi prolif inevitable
( ) Iran will get the bomb. Prefer CIA operatives.
Turnage ‘13
(James Turnage. managing editor at Guardian Express – internally quoting Reza Kahlili, former CIA spy in Iran – The Guardian Express – May 21st
– The parenthetical in the body of the evidence is from the original article – http://guardianlv.com/2013/05/iranian-nuclear-program-may-beinevitable/)
(According
to a report by Reza Kahlili, former CIA spy in Iran, published in WND.)¶ Is the United States government
hiding the reality of Iran’s nuclear program? Is it inevitable that they will have the ability to build and
launch these weapons of mass destruction in the very near future?¶ The answer , according to one of America’s
foremost experts on nuclear weapons
is yes. He based his opinion after examining aerial views of Iran’s nuclear
facility called “Quds”.¶ In an exclusive March 20 report with updates on March 24, March 25 and April 10, WND revealed the vast
“Quds” site. Iranian scientists are trying to perfect nuclear warheads at this underground facility previously
unknown to the West.¶ WND has a source inside Iran’s Ministry of Defense. He says that the facility is approximately 14 miles long and
7.5 miles wide. Inside the compound are two facilities built deep inside the mountain. Inside these hardened tunnels are 380 missile
silos/garages. The facilities are surrounded by barbed wire, 45 security towers and several security posts.¶ The most frightening part of his story
is that Iran
has already succeeded in increasing uranium stockpiles into “weapons grade”. ¶ Their source said
them in the final stages of completing more sophisticated weapons than
United States DOD experts previously believed.¶ An unnamed source, who worked as an expert for the U.S. Nuclear Agency, told
that this weapons grade metal places
WND that the facilities appear similar to what he inspected in Russia. These hardened tunnels are used to house missiles which can be quickly
deployed, and are defensible from aerial attack.¶ “I understand exactly what Iran has at the site … (including) a very important part of the
structures … the apparent hardened underground stub tunnels for secure storage of mobile systems which can be quickly moved to launching
sites.Ӧ The source said that Iran is working in close collaboration with North Korea, and certain members involved in the Chinese programs to
develop weapons. He said that soon he will be able to reveal the context of their association. He said he will also be able to pass along
information as to the plans and timing of Iran and North Korea’s efforts to arm missiles with nuclear warheads.¶ Fritz Ermarth, who served in
the CIA and as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, reviewed the satellite photos and said, “This imagery strongly suggests that Iran is
working on what we used to call an ‘objective force’, a deployed force of nuclear weapons on mobile missiles, normally based in deep
underground sites for survivability against even nuclear attack, capable of rapid deployment.”¶ “This open-source analysis by itself illustrates
that Iran is very serious about building survivable facilities for its nuclear enterprise,” said Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, the executive director of the
Task Force on National and Homeland Security, a congressional advisory board. Pry, who has served with the House Armed Services Committee
and in the CIA, also reviewed the imagery and added, “The location of the site amid an Iranian missile armory, protected by a vast array of
defensive and offensive missiles, is consistent with the intelligence reporting that the site is for the final stages of nuclear weapons
development. The complex appears to be the most heavily protected site in Iran.”¶ “Reza Kahlili (who revealed the Quds site) has provided the
West with one of the most critical pieces of evidence of the Iranian government’s drive to break out its nuclear development into a fully
operational capability,” said Maj. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney (Ret.). “All
Israel and the West, a
the red lines have been crossed. Beware America,
nuclear Iran is here!”
( ) If Iran gets the bomb, Saudis will be forced to do the same.
Al-Tamimi ‘13
Dr. Naser M. Al-Tamimi is a Middle East analyst with particular research interests in energy politics and the political economy of Saudi Arabia,
the Gulf and Middle East-Asia relations. He has carried out extensive research on various aspects of GCC-Asia relations. In addition, he is also a
UK-based independent political consultant and journalist. He has written and edited several articles and books, in Arabic and English, on the
most pertinent political and economic issues affecting the Middle East. Naser Al-Tamimi holds a PhD degree in Government and International
Relations from Durham University, UK. Al Arabiya.net – April 1st 2013 –
“Saudi-U.S. relations: changing dynamics” – http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2013/04/01/Saudi-U-S-relations-changing-dynamics.html
Secondly, in
the event of a nuclear breakout by Iran, Saudi Arabia would feel compelled to build or acquire
its own nuclear arsenal. Riyadh’s view that the Iranian threat is serious and immediate was recently expressed by diplomatic
cables obtained by WikiLeaks and published recently by the Guardian newspaper that revealed Saudi King Abdullah had privately
warned Washington about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Indeed, last summer in an interview with Haaretz newspaper, the former senior U.S.
diplomat Dennis Ross confirmed for the first time that Saudi Arabia’s King
Abdullah has explicitly warned the U.S. that if Iran
obtains nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will seek to do so as well. Ross’ direct quote of the Saudi king
appears to be the first public confirmation of the Saudi position and the threat of a Middle East nuclear arms race if
Tehran acquires a nuclear bomb. At present there is no solid evidence that Riyadh has taken firm steps to go down this route, nor is there any
evidence of Saudi acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.
Extensions – US Production boom triggers the disad
( ) US fracking boom now. This should non-unique Saudi perception.
Hudson ‘13
Alexandra Hudson – Correspondent with Reuters Berlin – Reuters – Feb 3, 2013 – http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/03/us-europeshale-idUSBRE91204Z20130203
The United States is enjoying an energy bonanza thanks to shale gas, making it a magnet for industry, reducing
import dependence
and challenging Europe as it battles to dig itself out of recession, energy officials say.¶ Panelists at a weekend
security conference in Munich warned Europe must develop a strategy on how to tap its own resources in order to keep energy costs
competitive, or risk seeing power-intensive industries locate elsewhere.¶ "The
shale gas and oil boom is already underway. As
Europe continues to debate it, North America is reaping the advantages," said Jorma Ollila, Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell
(RDSa.L).¶ Just a week ago Shell signed a $10 billion shale gas deal with Ukraine - the biggest contract yet in Europe - which could help Ukraine
ease its reliance on Russian gas imports.¶ Ukraine is said to have Europe's third-largest shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet (1.2 trillion
cubic meters), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.¶ Its reserves are dwarfed by those of France however, estimated to be
Europe's largest at 180 trillion cubic feet.¶ France has banned the procedure, known as fracking which is used to extract shale gas and which
involves pumping vast quantities of water and chemicals at high pressure through drill holes to prop open shale rocks.¶ Environmentalists fear
it could increase seismic risks and pollute drinking water. U.S. officials question this and say that thanks to the higher proportion of gas use the
United States has had its lowest carbon dioxide emissions in 20 years.¶ "Observing this from across the Atlantic it is really quite remarkable that
there should be a ban or a go-slow on this development in Europe, really without any facts," said Daniel Yergin, Vice-Chairman of IHS
Cambridge Energy Research.¶ Fracking is used to produce a third of U.S. natural gas he said, showing the environmental
impact can be managed.¶ SHALE SCRAMBLE¶ World energy market flows already reflect North America's scramble to exploit shale oil and gas
and highlight the potential prize Europe is ignoring.¶ "The
U.S. internal energy revolution and the radical increases in
production of oil and gas have boosted gas production by 25 percent and seen oil import dependence drop from 60
percent to 40 percent, and expected to decline further to 30 percent," said Carlos Pascual, the U.S. special envoy for
energy affairs.¶ While Europe retains deep environmental concerns it also acknowledges that with the price of gas in the United States just a
third of that in Germany, its industry is already suffering the effects.¶ German Economy Minister Philipp Roesler said: "Many German firms have
opted for (relocation to) the United States, saying energy prices were the decisive factor...We are already seeing that we are suffering with our
higher energy prices…it affects our own competiveness."¶ Addressing the panel in Munich European Union Commissioner Guenther Oettinger
said Europe should be in a position to produce enough shale gas to replace its depleting conventional gas reserves, so as not to become more
dependent on imports.¶ RUSSIA UNAFRAID¶ A greater abundance of gas could threaten the dominance of Russia's gas exports and pressure
prices. The United States seized Russia's spot as the world's largest gas producer in 2012, and is due to produce significantly more from 2015.¶
"I believe that the shale revolution is something positive, a chance for all of us to launch technologies, intensify competitiveness, make our
countries more energy secure, and reduce costs," said Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak.¶ Russia is focusing on boosting exports to
energy-hungry Asia and developing infrastructure to transport gas eastwards.¶ A recent confidential study by the German intelligence agency
(BND) suggested the
United States could turn from being the world's greatest energy importer into an oil and
gas exporter by 2020, reducing its dependence on the Middle East and thereby giving it much more
freedom in policy making .
Extensions – Cuban reserves too small to displace Mid-East
( ) Quantity of Cuban reserves is exaggerated.
Padgett ‘8
Tim Padgett joined TIME in 1996 as Mexico City bureau chief covering Latin America. In 1999 he moved to Florida to become TIME’s Miami &
Latin America bureau chief, reporting on the hemisphere from Tallahassee to Tierra del Fuego. He has chronicled Mexico’s democratization and
drug war as well as the rise of Latin leaders like Lula and Hugo Chavez, “How Cuba’s Oil Find Could Change the US Embargo”¶ Time Magazine –
Oct. 23, 2008 – internally quoting Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, a Cuba oil analyst at the University of Nebraska-Omaha.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,¶ 1853252,00.html#ixzz13Li5cosN
But is
the Cuban calculation really on the level? Skeptics ask if the 20-billion-bbl. estimate is just a ploy to
rekindle investor interest, at a time when falling oil prices could make the maritime find less attractive to the potential international
partners Cuba needs to extract the oil. The effort is all the more urgent, they add, because reduced oil revenues could also make friends like
left-wing Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez less able to aid Cuba with cut-rate crude shipments and capital to improve the island's aged
refineries. "The
Cuba numbers from my point of view are not valid," says Jorge Pinon, an energy fellow at the University of Miami
and an expert on Cuba's oil business. "I think they're feeling a lot of pressure right now to accelerate the
development of their own oil resources." Benjamin-Alvarado gives Cuba's geologists more benefit of the doubt; but he calls
the 20-billion-bbl. estimate "off the charts." "I trust them as oil people, and their seismic readings might be right," he says, "but
until we see secondary, outside analysis, this is going to be suspect."
Extensions – Ties resilient/Oil not key
( ) Oil no longer key to US-Saudi ties.
ALI IBRAHIM ‘13
Saudi OIL MINISTER ALI IBRAHIM AL-NAIMI – Federal News Service – April 30, 2013 – lexis
Lastly, the
rhetoric on reliance fails to properly recognize the importance of the partnership between
the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. We have a shared history and close bonds which began with oil, but they
go far deeper than a simple consumer-producer relationship . We are allies in more than just oil.
U.S.
companies helped, and I'm happy that some of them are here -- U.S. companies helped form the basis of what is today Saudi Aramco, one of
the world's finest oil companies.¶ Many thousands of U.S. citizens continue to work in Saudi Arabia. U.S.
and Saudi firms are
partners in a range of industries, and U.S. universities continue to help educate some of our young
people. Ladies and gentlemen, this brings me to the second part of my talk here today: The current energy and economic outlook in Saudi
Arabia.
( ) Saudi ties resilient – if they withstood fluctuations like 9-11, they’ll withstand the
plan.
Coleman ‘13
(internally quoting Prince Turki Al-Faisal, chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies – Michael Coleman is a
contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat. The Washington Diplomat – Uploaded on January 31, 2013 –
http://www.washdiplomat.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8818:us-saudi-relationship-weathers-arabspring&catid=1496&Itemid=428)
Prince Turki Al-Faisal,
chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, has spoken at the NCUSAR
conference for the last several years about the ups and downs in U.S.-Saudi relations — the low point being
9/11, when 15 of the 19 attackers turned out to be Saudi citizens — though he insists the relationship
remains on solid footing, for the most part.¶ "Are we content in our relationship with this country? Yes and
no. We are entrusting more than 70,000 of our youngsters to your universities to show our confidence in your
educational system," Al-Faisal said, referring to the number of Saudis studying in the United States this year. ¶ "We also differ with you
on Palestine and wish that you would adopt the Abdullah Peace Initiative and that you are more evenhanded in promoting what is a
declared policy of your government: a viable and contiguous Palestinian state," he added, citing the dormant peace initiative first proposed by
the then Saudi crown prince in 2002 that offers Israel a complete normalization of relations with the Arab world in return for its withdrawal
from Palestinian lands.
( ) US-Saudi relations resilient; oil not key.
LA Times ‘11
(June 19, "U.S., Saudis in Mideast tug of war; Quest for greater influence intensifies as uprisings in the region further drive a wedge between
the longtime allies." LEXIS)
A senior State Department official insisted that on security and energy issues, the alliance remains
"rock solid." The two countries also continue to cooperate closely on counter-terrorism , and have
collaborated on the political crisis enveloping Yemen that has raised the specter of a resurgent Al Qaeda, officials note. The
United States is selling the Saudis $60 billion in arms and other military hardware in a multiyear deal, the largest
U.S. weapons transaction ever.
Extensions – Saudis won’t ever prolif
( ) Saudis can’t and won’t prolif – prefer qualified experts.
Scoblete ‘13
Greg – Editor at Real Clear World – internally quoting a Center for a New American Security report, whose lead author, CNAS senior fellow Colin
Kahl, served as deputy assistant Defense secretary for the Middle East from 2009 to 2011. Colin Kahl is also an associate professor in the
Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University – “Why a Nuclear Iran Won't Trigger a
Regional Arms Race” – Real Clear World – February 20, 2013 –
http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2013/02/why_a_nuclear_iran_wont_trigger_a_middle_east_arms_race.html
The Center for a New American Security is out with a report this week (PDF) arguing that if Iran does manage to build a nuclear weapon, it
won't catalyze a wave of nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East. The report centers specifically on Saudi Arabia,
arguing that the conventional wisdom surrounding the country's incentives to seek nukes is
" probably wrong," as " significant disincentives would weigh against a mad rush by Riyadh to develop
nuclear weapons."¶ The report's authors argue that there are considerable technological, legal and political
hurdles that stand between Saudi Arabia and a bomb. Instead, Riyadh would run to Washington for help deterring Iran,
relying on the U.S. nuclear umbrella and additional assurances (such as the basing of additional "trip wire" forces in the region) instead.¶ The
authors also pour cold water over the idea that Pakistan would simply sell nuclear weapons to Saudi
Arabia, writing that Pakistan views its nuclear arsenal solely through the lens of deterring India. PanIslamic solidarity isn't a big enough motivator to run the risks involved in selling those weapons to
another state, they write. There is some small possibility that Pakistan would extend a "nuclear umbrella" to Saudi Arabia, but even that
prospect was deemed highly unlikely by CNAS given the costs and difficulties it would entail.¶ Earlier this week, Peter Jones, a professor at the
University of Ottawa and visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, made a similar argument, claiming that expectations of
rapid
nuclear proliferation in the Middle East are belied by the actual history of how states behave in the
nuclear age. Granted, the nuclear age isn't all that long and taking an overly deterministic view of how the Middle East would react could be
equally blinkered. But it's still worth noting that most of the potential candidates for acquiring a nuclear weapon are either close U.S. allies
(Jordan, Saudi Arabia) or too dysfunctional (Egypt) to manage.
Neg Section
A-to Iran makes Saudi Prolif inevitable
( ) Iran prolif not inevitable – prefer expert reporters.
Hibbs ‘13
(Mark Hibbs is a former journalist who has been covering nuclear proliferation issues for more than 30 years. In 2006, The Atlantic's William
Langewiesche wrote that Hibbs "must rank as one of the greatest reporters at work in the world today." Hibbs is now a Bonn-based senior
associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – This article is an interview of Hobbs by The Atlantic – “Is a Nuclear Iran
Inevitable ?” – The Atlantic – April 12th – http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/is-a-nuclear-iran-inevitable/274924/)
You mention that there are countries like Iran that don't necessarily pursue the path to the bomb in terms of months or years -- they pursue it
in terms of slow progress that reaches a kind of momentum where it's almost irreversible. Do
you think that we've reached the
point with Iran where they've slowly built their capability to the point that it's inevitable that they get the bomb, unless
there's something major like war, an attack or some sort of internal social breakdown that prevents them from getting there?¶ No, I don't
believe that. I think that most analysts would conclude that between the period of around the middle of the 1980s and today, there
have been forces in Iran that have led certain people in the decision-making structure to try to have a nuclear weapons
capability. There are probably others in the system who didn't want that. Iran is by no means a
monolithic country.¶ ...Iran right now has a decision to make. It has acquired considerable nuclear capability which have brought them very
far along down a path towards obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. There's no question about that in my mind. But right now it's up to
Iran to decide whether it's going to draw a red line there, or whether it's going to cross it. And I think there's no consensus
right now about which direction Iran's going to move in.
( ) Iran prolif would ONLY cause Saudi prolif IF the Saudis perceived weakened
commitment from the US.
McDowall ‘13
Angus McDowall is a British freelance reporter who lived in Tehran between 2003-07. He is internally quoting a report from the
Center for a New American Security, whose lead author, CNAS senior fellow Colin Kahl, served as deputy assistant Defense
secretary for the Middle East from 2009 to 2011. Colin Kahl is also an associate professor in the Security Studies Program in the
Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and a former finalist at the National Debate Tournament.
Maybe we’ll get him to come and talk to the camp. “Iran nuke unlikely to start Mideast arms race: report” – Source: Reuters
February 20, 2013 – http://www.cnas.org/node/10078
Sunni Muslim Saudi
Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, is engaged in a fierce rivalry with Shi'ite power
Iran and is seen in Western countries as the most likely Middle Eastern state to seek an atomic weapon
if Iran did the same.¶ Analysts have also said an Iranian nuclear weapons capability might persuade Egypt and Turkey to seek a bomb
too.¶ Israel, which has never declared its atomic weapons capability, is thought to be the Middle East's only nuclear-armed power now although
Iran's eastern neighbor Pakistan has atomic weapons.¶ In December 2011, former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal said that if
Tehran did gain nuclear weapons capability, Saudi Arabia should consider matching it.¶ Riyadh has also announced plans to build 17 gigawatts
of atomic energy by 2032 as it moves to reduce domestic oil consumption, freeing up more crude for export.¶ However, a
report by the
Center for a New American Security (CNAS) says that although there is some risk that Saudi Arabia would seek an
atomic bomb, it would more likely rely on its ally, the United States, to protect it. "The conventional
wisdom is probably wrong," the report said.
( ) Iran acquisition won’t prompt Saudi acquisition. They’d take other steps instead.
Oswald ‘13
Rachel Oswald is a reporter for Global Security Newswire. She is a graduate of the George Washington University, where she majored in Middle
Eastern Studies. Her article is internally quoting CNAS senior fellow Colin Kahl, who served as deputy assistant Defense secretary for the Middle
East from 2009 to 2011. “Saudi Arabia Unlikely to Pursue Nuke: Experts” – Global Security Newswire – Feb 21st –
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/saudi-arabia-unlikely-pursue-nuke-should-iran-first-acquire-capability-experts/
Saudi Arabia is not likely to respond to a nuclear-armed Iran by pursuing a corresponding deterrent,
but would instead look to boost its conventional military capabilities and acquire an outside nuclear
defense guarantee , according to a new report by the Center for a New American Security.¶ The United States
and partner nations have warned that Tehran's suspected aim to develop a nuclear-weapon capability could lead to an atomic "domino effect" in the Middle East. A
rich Persian Gulf nation with a long-running rivalry with Iran, Saudi Arabia is often cited as the Arab state most likely to pursue a nuclear arsenal. ¶ “The Saudis fear
that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would tip the balance of regional leadership decisively in Tehran’s favor,” states
the report, whose lead
author, CNAS senior fellow Colin Kahl, served as deputy assistant Defense secretary for the Middle
East from 2009 to 2011. “Saudi leaders also worry that a nuclear deterrent would enable Iran’s coercive diplomacy, allowing Tehran to run higher risks
and more effectively push Arab states to accommodate Iranian interests.”
A-to “US production boom triggers the disad”
Extend our 1NC Rogers ev – the US can only produce light-crude. That doesn’t scare
Saudis because US refineries depend-upon heavy crude.
And – Cuban supplies differ from US supplies. They have heavy crude oil.
Alhaiji & Maris ‘4
[Dr. A. F. Alhajji is an energy economist and George Patton Chair of Business and Economics at the College of Business Administration at Ohio
Northern, Terry L. Maris is the founding executive director of the Center for Cuban. Business Studies and professor of management, “The
Future of Cuba’s Energy Sector,” Cuba Today, 2004, http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/bildn/publications/cubatodaybookcomplete.pdf#page=105]
The Institute for Cuban & Cuban American studies states on its web site¶ that oil
was discovered in Cuba in 1914. In a different
location, it indicates¶ that oil was first discovered in 1881, about 20 years after its commercial discovery¶ in the United States.4 However, it
was not developed commercially¶ until the early 1930s. The USGS estimates that Cuban waters may contain¶
about 4 billion barrels of oil. Several political and economic factors have limited¶ the development of
Cuban oil. The breakup of the Soviet Union and the¶ loss of Soviet oil shipments forced Cuba to increase its exploration activities¶ and
develop its oil resources. Several reports estimate proven oil reserves to¶ be between 510 million barrels5 (mb) and 750 mb in 2004.6 Even
conservative estimates reflect a substantial increase in Cuba’s oil reserves in recent years, which stood at 284mb in 2001.
All current
crude comes from onshore fields. Almost all Cuban crude is heavy with high sulfur content. Cuba needs to
find light crude oil reseres in order to achieve its goal of self sufficiency.
( ) US Shale boom doesn’t trigger the link – overstated supply.
Husain ‘13
[in ternally quoting Dr Bassam Fattouh, the Director of the Oil and Middle East Programme at the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, Research
Fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford University and professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies was in Dhahran. Syed Rashid Husain,
Energy Columnist at Saudi Gazette, CEO at Husain's Associates, Toronto, CANADA, Vice President at Al-Azzaz Est; Education: Institute of
Business Administration, 6/2/13, “Breaking down US energy independence hype,” Dawn, http://beta.dawn.com/news/1015486/breakingdown-us-energy-independence-hype]
Last week, Dr
Bassam Fattouh, the Director of the Oil and Middle East Programme at the Oxford Institute
of Energy Studies, Research Fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford University and professor at the School of Oriental and
African Studies was in Dhahran, talking about the ongoing revolution in the energy world, the challenges it
presents and, ‘the disconnect’ between the hype that Washington is soon to be free of dependence on
the oil rich Middle East and the reality.¶ Can Washington really be on a solo flight? Would the geopolitics
of the oil rich Middle East about to change on account of the shale revolution? Isn’t all this for domestic political
consumption?¶ Fattouh kept countering and discarding the arguments of the hype mongers — one after the
other. He underlined in very clear terms, that no shale revolution would have taken place without the sustained high
crude market prices. The prices, he said, has been one of the major ‘enablers’ of this revolution.¶ While
many in the industry continue to argue that crude markets are about to turn soft — rather considerably —
due to the weakening market fundamentals, yet Fattouh says the possibility of a price meltdown is not too
high.¶ Even today producers are hedging their output in mid 90s, indicating that the prices may continue to be around the current price level.
And then the ongoing shale revolution owes its origin to cheap capitals — made available by the governments all around.¶ He argued that
looking at the incremental supplies from the US; one might get an impression of abundance. But that
is not the case — he countered.¶ “Despite the sloppy global demand, why are the oil prices not going down?” he questioned. An
interesting counter argument indeed.¶ The US developments alone could not transform the global markets, he emphasised. Other factors, such
as continued dwindling demand in the US and the rest of the world, non-Opec production scenario, squeeze on Opec and lack of cohesion
within the producers’ group, could lead to that. And with situation about the above issues not very clear, the current ongoing hype is only
adding to uncertainty in the markets.¶ Fattouh
also raised questions about the sustainability of the US output,
underlining that 90 per cent of the output from Bakken and Eagle Ford are coming from 5/6 counties
while the decline rates in the wells are considerable. Consequently, to ensure steady growth, the numbers of wells being
drilled are on rise.¶ Turning to the evolving market, he pointed out that US domestic production has led to
lack of demand of light and medium crude. However, demand for the heavy crude, produced by the Saudi Arabia is there.¶
And in the meantime, due to price discount the Canadian producers need to provide to their customers, the
growth in Canadian output is slowing down, resulting in continued US imports from the Middle East, the director at the
Oxford Institute for Energy Research underlined.
( ) US Shale is too short term to bridge energy independence
Business Insider ‘13
[Arthur Berman, (quoted in article) Oil Analyst, Labyrinth Consulting Services, 1/20/2013, “Oil Guru Destroys All Of The Hype About America's
Energy Boom,” Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/arthur-berman-shale-is-magical-thinking-2013-1?op=1#ixzz2WKIYV4kB]
Not everyone believes the U.S. is capable of becoming energy independent thanks to its shale oil and
gas reserves, as the International Energy Association suggested recently.¶ The math just doesn't work out, they say —
America consumes too much . ¶ But some are even more skeptical than that.¶ Arthur Berman, an oil analyst with
Labyrinth Consulting Services, says the promise of America's shale reserves have been vastly
overstated.¶ His main argument: Shale is too expensive to drill, and shale wells usually don't last longer than
a couple of years.¶ Last year, he laid out his case at a gathering of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas in Austin Texas.¶
With his permission, we've reproduced it here.¶ Berman argues the promise of America's shale revolution is "magical
thinking." Shale drilling is too expensive and too ephemeral to make a lasting impact.¶ There tends to be a huge gap
between the estimated amount recoverable and what actually ends up getting recovered.¶ Shale is the
most expensive and most complicated source of energy.¶ The amount of product shale has contributed to overall consumption has been
relatively minuscule.¶ The
gap between production and consumption is 9 million barrels of oil a day. "It is
unlikely that the U.S. will become energy independent," Berman argues.¶ Berman focuses on the Bakken oil play in North
Dakota. As of last summer it had 236 rigs, second highest in the nation.¶ He says Bakken oil production has increased to
573,000 barrels per day from 4874 producing wells. The average well is 118 barrels of oil per day, and each well costs $11.5
million.¶ But the Bakken has a 38 percent decline rate, according to Berman — meaning if you stopped drilling now,
you'd lose 38% of your production after a year.¶ He says there was no improvement in well efficiency
between 2010 and 2011. In some cases it's taking increasing numbers of wells to get the same amount of product. Berman says the
costs are "astronomical."¶ The Bakken is already going at a breakneck rate — there's now very little production coming from
wells older than a few years.¶ We can see the same phenomenon occurring in other shale plays like the Eagle
Ford in Texas.¶ The number of currently viable wells in the Bakken has dwindled.¶ In conclusion: America's gains from
shale will be short-lived, and certainly won't be our bridge to independence.
( ) US fracking won’t unlock an oil independence– the product’s quality is too low.
Owen ‘13
[Jane Owen, resident and founder of Citizens League for Environmental Action Now (CLEAN), “Long-Term Costs Of Fracking Are Staggering,”
Climate Progress, 03/19/2013, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/19/1742171/long-term-costs-of-fracking-are-staggering/?mobile=nc]
All the hype by the fossil fuel industry about energy independence from fracking (hydraulic fracturing) in tight
gas reservoirs like the Barnett Shale has left out the costs in energy, water and other essential natural
resources.¶ Furthermore, a recent report from the Post Carbon Institute finds that projections for an energy boom from
non-conventional fossil fuel sources is not all it’s cracked up to be.¶ The report cites a study by David Hughes,
Canadian geologist, who says the low quality of hydrocarbons from bitumen – shale oil and shale gas – do not
provide the same energy returns as conventional hydrocarbons due to the energy needed to extract
or upgrade them. Hughes also notes that the “new age of energy abundance” forecast by the industry will soon run dry because shale
gas and shale oil wells deplete quickly. In fact, the “best fields have already been tapped.”¶ “Unconventional fossil
fuels all share a host of cruel and limiting traits,” says Hughes. “They offer dramatically fewer energy
returns; they consume extreme and endless flows of capital; they provide difficult or volatile rates of
supply over time and have large environmental impacts in their extraction.”
Cuban oil does trade-off
( ) US would sacrifice oil contracts from the Mid-East in exchange for Cuba – saves on
transport costs
Fesler 09
[Lily Fesler, Research Associate, “Cuban Oil: Havana’s Potential Geo-Political Bombshell,” June 11, Council on Hemispheric Affairs,
http://www.coha.org/cuban-oil-havana%E2%80%99s-potential-geo-political-bombshell/#sthash.XL8uloIO.dpuf]
Cuban Offshore Oil¶ Desperate
to end U.S. dependence on oil from the Middle East, United States’ officials
are certainly aware of Cuba’s oil-producing potential. In its 2004 assessment, the U.S. Geological Survey found that
Cuba has 5 billion barrels of crude oil off its northern shores; Havana claims it has 20 billion . Five billion barrels would put Cuba on par with
Colombia or Ecuador, while 20
billion barrels would make Cuba’s oil capacity comparable to that of the United
States’ and place it among the top 15 oil reserves nations in the world. Either way, Cuba’s oil is attracting the
attention of oil companies from around the globe. At the moment, Spain’s Repsol, Brazil’s Petrobras, and Norway’s StatoilHydro are overseeing
exploratory drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. India, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Venezuela also have signed deals with Cuba.¶ Havana
has
publicly stated that it welcomes American investment, but U.S. companies are incapable of
proceeding without an official go-ahead from Washington. As Juan Fleites, vice president of Havana’s state oil company
Cubapetroleo, said, “We are open to U.S. oil companies interested in exploration, production and services.” U.S. oil tycoons have shown
definite interest, but Kurt Glaubitz, a spokesman for Chevron, explained, “Until trade barriers are removed, Chevron is unable to do business in
Cuba. Companies like us would have to see a change in U.S. policy before we evaluate whether there’s interest.” The aforementioned foreign
companies already have contracted for 21 of the 59 offshore Cuban drilling blocks, and another 23 blocks are currently under negotiation by
other foreign nations, including Russia and China.¶ A U.S. Stake in Cuban Oil?¶ It is not too late for the U.S. to develop a stake in Cuba’s nascent
oil output. It takes between three and five years to develop oil reserves, and as of yet, there has been no major oil discovery off the island.
Repsol struck oil in 2004, but not enough to sell commercially. Several other foreign firms are currently using seismic testing, which assesses the
oil content of potential deposits, after which they will probably begin exploring in 2010 or 2011. The exploration manager for Cubapetroleo,
Rafael Tenreyro Pérez, has called the incoming results from seismic testing in Cuba’s reserves “very encouraging.”¶ After lifting
the
embargo, U.S. oil companies could most likely work out an arrangement whereby the U.S. would exchange its reserves with nearby holdings
of foreign companies, allowing the U.S. access to Cuba’s oil even after all of the contracts have been signed. This could appreciably save
transportation costs, because U.S. companies wouldn’t have to go halfway around the world in search of
oil refineries, with Cuba only 90 miles away.¶ U.S. oil equipment and service companies like Halliburton, however, already have
lost the opportunity to build refineries, pipelines, and ports, sacrificing tens of millions of dollars in revenue. U.S. companies’ oil contracts are
not just significant for their own potential profits, but also for American consumers’ access to reasonably priced neighboring oil. With oil prices
recovering from a December low of $32.40 a barrel back to around $70 a barrel,
matter of serious import.
access to more oil sources could become a
Perception link
( ) New oil markets makes Saudis perceive decline in US-Saudi ties.
House ‘12
(not oft-disgruntled House, M.D., but Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and former publisher of The Wall Street Journal, Karen Elliott House.
Carnegie Council Transcripts and Articles – November 30, 2012 – lexis)
QUESTION: Warren Hoge[28], International Peace Institute.¶ Karen, there's a lot of talk in American politics about the
desire to become energy independent, no longer dependent upon countries like Saudi Arabia, and there's a real possibility
that could happen. The numbers are there, fracking and offshore oil, that sort of thing. Suppose that does happen. How would
that affect our relationship with Saudi Arabia , and is this something the Saudis themselves worry
about?¶ KAREN ELLIOTT HOUSE: I don't think they like it when we talk about energy independence .
They
do
take that as a personal insult . I think it would loosen somewhat our sense of dependence. But the
global economy is still going to be not we so much; I mean we're not a major importer of Saudi oil now but the global economy is a major
importer of Saudi oil and will continue to be.¶ There are a lot of people, like John Deutch[29], who is a very smart man and certainly knows
energy, who believes that it doesn't matter who runs Saudi Arabia, they will export oil. And they obviously will export some. But if you assume
that if anything happened to take the royal family out of the picture, the only other organized structure because nothing is allowed to organize,
no book clubs, no photography clubs, no soccer leagues other than the one the government runs is the religious organization. There are 70,000
mosques all over the country. That's basically one for every 150 men. So that's the most organized group.
US-Saudi Relations hinge on US Oil dependency
( ) Oil independence deteriorates US-Saudi ties
Tanter ‘12
[RAYMOND TANTER, Professor Emeritus, University of Michigan; President of Iran Policy Committee Publishing; and former member of the
National Security Council staff in the Reagan-Bush Administration, “The Geopolitics of U.S. Energy Independence,” International Economy,
Summer 2012, http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Su12_GeopoliticsEnergySymp.pdf]
At issue is whether energy independence will cause¶ a revision of U.S. national security policy. Because¶ energy
is only one of the
drivers, energy independence¶ is unlikely to have the major effect implied by the¶ Verleger thesis. During the Cold
War, American participation¶ in the Korean and Vietnam Wars did not have¶ energy as a driver; likewise, energy is not at the core of U.S. longterm commitments to South Korea and Japan in the post-Cold War era. Shared values, prior commitments, and strategic calculations are more
important than energy regarding countries such as Israel. In my experience on the National Security Council staff in the 1980s, there was little
discussion of energy in relation to Israel. Ditto for Turkey. Control of energy was more important than values and commitments for Washington
to save Kuwait after Iraq’s invasion in the first Gulf War, but not relevant to the takedown of Saddam Hussein a decade later, and irrelevant to
the post-September 11 invasion of Afghanistan to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban. With respect to Iran, energy was a factor in the cooperation
of American and British intelligence to overthrow the Mosaddeq government in 1953, but proliferation concerns trump energy a half century
later. Concerning
Saudi¶ Arabia, energy is at the heart of the relationship. So rising¶ oil prices and production costs,
declining reserves, and¶ increasingly available alternative fuels as well as nonconventional¶ sources of oil
are bound to make Riyadh of¶ less consequence to Washington than it is today. ¶ Saudi Arabia’s comparative
advantage in oil production¶ and the world economy’s thirst for oil converged to¶ make the Kingdom a strategic ally in the past. But the¶
odds that the Kingdom will survive the spreading Arab¶ revolts are not high, and the American
commitment to the¶ royal family is mainly against external, not internal,¶ threats. Hence, coming to
the defense of the Kingdom is¶ likely to be perceived in Washington as too costly when¶ the threat is
from within.¶ With European countries becoming more dependent¶ on Russia for energy supplies, and Russia as well as Germany¶
becoming closer economic partners, the likelihood¶ of out-of-area involvement by NATO in such places as¶ Afghanistan is not high. And as the
saying goes, “Out of¶ area or out of business!” Verleger suggests that American¶ energy independence could make this era the “New American¶
Century” by creating an economic environment¶ where the United States enjoys access to energy supplies¶ at much lower cost than other parts
of the world and giving¶ the U.S. economy an edge over other nations, particularly¶ northern Europe. In the context of enhanced¶ American
energy independence, the Obama Administration’s¶ pivot to Asia is likely to be of more import for¶ Europe than the Middle East. Finally, U.S.
energy independence¶ is likely to reinforce isolationist foreign policy¶ tendencies already in force in
the United States. A gamechanging¶ event like an Iranian nuclear weapon could wipe¶ out the tide toward isolationism.
( ) US-Saudi interaction is fully dependent on oil – the plan removes that link
Congregalli ‘13
[Matteo Congregalli, International Politics Journalist, “Without Oil. Without Allies: USA and the New American Dream of Independent Energy,”
Urban Times, 2/15/13, http://urbantimes.co/magazine/2013/02/usa-oil-saudi-arabia-independent-domestic-energy-supply/]
Examples of oil-diplomacy are known to be neither smooth nor easy. Take, for example, the harsh relations
between the US and Colonel Gaddafi’s Libya; or the invasion of Iraq, back in 2003, whose justification was not uniquely about Saddam’s
Weapons of Mass Destruction – as UN reports confirmed; or the closure of the Hormuz strait, back in 2011. Iran threatened to close the strait in
retaliation to the massive burden of sanctions on the Islamic Republic. As an unlucky coincidence, almost 17 billion barrels pass through the
strait, every day. The blockade imposed by the Iranian military Navy made the oil prices skyrocket in just few weeks.¶ Saudi
Arabia’s
relationship with the US was always based on mutual convenience. After 9/11, both Washington and
Riyadh were allies in War on Terror. US wanted stability in the area. Later on, Saudi Arabia wanted to preserve their power in
spite of the Arab Spring. US needed oil for a convenient price. Saudi Arabia needed arms.¶ In 2008, the US Senate
struggled to approve a resolution to help cut soaring gasoline prices by providing the Saudi government with 900 cutting-edge military kits in
return for increasing oil production. The resolution aimed at securing the Gulf area and winning support for the growing sanctions on Iran.
Despite the potential revenue – about $20 billion – the decision was stalling at the Senate as the
Saudis were not keen on downing the price of the crude oil from 75 cents to 50 cents per gallon. ¶ “We
are saying to the Saudis that, if you don’t help us, why should we be helping you? ” said the democratic
Senator Chuck Schumer. “We are saying that we need real relief, and we need it quickly. You need our arms,
but we need you to cooperate and not strangle American consumers.” The resolution passed, eventually.¶
According to statistics: throughout Bush’s terms, the arms dealing with Saudi doubled from $19 billion between 2001-2004 to $40 billion
between 2005- 2008. In the last five years, under Obama’s administration, the deals reached $60 billion.¶ At the end of December 2011, the US
Department of State held a press briefing about a further arms sale to Saudi Arabia. The
agreement included 84 brand new F15 combat aircrafts for an eight-figure sum: $30 billion. The Assistant secretary Andrew Shapiro declared:¶ “This
agreement serves to reinforce the strong and enduring relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia.Ӧ No matter how much
discounted oil you can get. Providing cutting-edge arms is also a strategy to ensure the stability of the region, crucial for American interests.¶
“There are geopolitical interests at stake, driving the arms deal. Saudi Arabia works with the US as they have a common strategy and common
agreement,” says Farhang Moradi, senior lecturer in Globalisation and Development at University of Westminster, London.¶ Shipping F-15s to
Riyadh is a first-line defence to empower the biggest US ally in the region. But¶ “We have to keep in mind that buying arms in respect of selling
oil could be the case. However, buying advanced arms doesn’t put the Saudi in the position of defining the area from actors such as Iran.”¶
Security, first – The positions of the American military bases in the Persian Gulf (Image Source: Google Maps).¶ An additional security belt of air
and ground bases extends all around Iran and the Persian Gulf. There are at least 21 bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, United Arab Emirates,
Iraq, Bahrain and Kuwait. The question we should answer is whether the military infrastructures are about to be left behind now that the
burden of regional interests and energy need is shrinking.¶ “These bases are giving them the infrastructures to check and balance. It costs them
something but the cost is worth it in order to manage the gulf,” says Moradi.¶ The military presence is a result of with oil production and the
control of the political actors. The Gulf oil has always been a priority for the US. But in the age of the war on terror and the growing threat of a
nuclear Iran, abandoning the battlefield is not a strategy-wise option. In the same regard, we should not expect the sanctions against Iran to
diminish and that the US army will leave their bases anytime soon.¶ The
real shift in the region could come in the long
run.¶ “If US oil demands fall, it doesn’t mean that foreign demand won’t continue. Emerging countries suck oik;
China, India, Turkey. They need oil on their routes to development” says Moradi.¶ According to many, in ten years time there will be a new
producer-consumer relationship in the region. It will not involve the US anymore. Russia,
China, India will be bounded by new
energy ties.¶ “The demand for oil is going to be pretty good. Those producing oil are therefore going to export a lot. The balance of forces
will change in terms of energy and power. Those changes will have subsequent effects upon other countries that
may perceive themselves as competing powers against USA; China and Russia.Ӧ This likely shift of interest will
cause a scenario where China and India will discontinue being mere investors in the Middle East and Central Asia. In the near future they could
install bases and military infrastructures in the region, while the American ones will be gone.¶ The
de-Americanisation of the Gulf
is yet to come. But the first signs are already emerging. At the beginning of February, the US secretary
of Defence, Leon Panetta announced that just one aircraft carrier will be deployed in the Gulf instead
of two. The decision is motivated by defence budget cuts. Is it a sign of the de-prioritisation of the control of the Gulf? Probably. In the
meantime, the lowering security in the area, as well the US’ soft way of dealing with the Arab Spring, is making the Gulf States nervous. Are
diplomatic relations facing a crisis? It is definitely a sign of an upcoming change.¶ The surge in US oil and natural gas
production, which will scatter the American diplomatic ties, is not without reason. America suddenly found out that
underneath their land, millions of barrels of sweet crude oil were reachable by merely changing the drilling technique. A well-known one is
called ‘fracking’ which involves fracturing layers of rock and pumping water and sand in the well to get to the oil reserve. Tens of sites in the US
were considered worthless till fracking was introduced. Fracturing the rocks allow to reach deep and huge oil reserves, otherwise out-of-theway. That’s how the States are turning into a Saudi Arabia with burgers, baseball, and guns.
A-to “Cuban extraction inevitable in the squo”
( ) Cuban oil exploration will stay low in the squo.
Pinon ‘13
(Progreso Weekly talked with energy affairs researcher Jorge Piñón, a Cuban-American who left the island during Operation Peter Pan and
these many years later continues to talk in first-person-singular when referring to Cuba. Piñón has worked in the oil industry and was president
for Latin America of AMOCO Oil Co. At present, he is a researcher for the Center for Energy and Environmental Resources of the University of
Texas at Austin. The interview was held at the Meliá Habana Hotel in Cuba. The portion quoted in this card are the portions where Pinon is
speaking – ¶ Progreso Weekly – May 7th – http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=92634)
That is the process we have conducted for the past 10 years in Cuba, which includes a study by the U.S. Geological Survey. This
study, done
for the first time in 2004, estimates
that in Cuba’s geological north strip, off shore, from Pinar del Río Province to northern
are oil reserves.¶ The surveyors raise the possibility that from 4 billion to 6 billion
barrels of crude are still to be found. These geological studies are very environmental, but historically they are highly trusted by
Matanzas province, there
our industry. That doesn’t mean that they guarantee the amount of oil, but it’s the first step in that stage.¶ We are beyond the stage of studies;
now we are in the stage of exploration. Four wells have been exploited by serious international oil companies – each well has cost at least $100
million – so, in other words, it wasn’t a political “game.”¶ So far, the hoped-for results have not materialized; at least, that’s what I’m told by
sources I’ve consulted. We still have the rest of the Gulf of Mexico, the deep waters in the rest of the Gulf of Mexico, adjacent to the United
States’ exclusive zone. I think that there are possibilities there.¶ In my opinion, in
the next three to five years, unfortunately,
I don’t see a high probability that Cuba will maintain the level of exploration in deep waters such as
we’ve seen in the past two or three years.
( ) Cuban oil not inevitable. International oil companies are turning to other parts of
the globe.
O’Grady ‘13
Mary O'Grady is a member of the editorial board at The Wall Street Journal – WSJ – April 24, 2013 –
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324474004578442511561458392.html
Remember all the hype about Cuba drilling for oil in Caribbean waters and American companies missing out
on the bonanza because of the U.S. embargo? Well, like all the other Cuban get-rich-quick schemes of the
past 50 years, this one seems to have flopped too.¶ Last week, Florida's Sun Sentinel reported that "after spending nearly $700
million during a decade, energy companies from around the world have all but abandoned their search for oil
in deep waters off the north coast of Cuba near Florida." Separately, CubaStandard.com reported on Friday that "the shallowwater drilling platform used by Russian oil company OAO Zarubezhneft will leave Cuban waters June 1, to be redeployed to Asia."¶
According to the Sun Sentinel story, Jorge Piñon, an oil-industry guru who had been cheering Cuba's exploration attempts, said "Companies
are saying, 'We cannot spend any more capital on this high-risk exploration. We'd rather go to Brazil; we'd rather go to
Angola; we'd rather go to other places in the world where the technological and geological challenges are less.'"
A-to “No Cuban Oil Reserves”
( ) Large untapped reserves in Cuba
Sadowski ‘11
Richard Sadowski is a Class of 2012 J.D. candidate, at Hofstra University¶ School of Law, NY. Mr. Sadowski is also the Managing Editor of
Production of¶ the Journal of International Business and Law Vol. XI. “Cuban Offshore Drilling: Preparation and¶ Prevention within the
Framework of the United¶ States’ Embargo” – ¶ Sustainable Development Law & Policy¶ Volume 12; Issue 1 Fall 2011: Natural Resource
Conflicts Article 10 – http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1497&context=sdlp
A U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Cuba’s offshore¶ oil fields hold at least four and a half billion barrels
of recoverable¶ oil and ten trillion cubic feet of natural gas.29 Cupet, the¶ state-owned Cuban energy
company, insists that actual reserves¶ are double that of the U.S. estimate.30 One estimate indicates¶ that Cuba
could be producing 525,000 barrels of oil per day.31¶ Given this vast resource, Cuba has already leased offshore oil¶ exploration blocks to
operators from Spain, Norway, and India.32¶ Offshore oil discoveries in Cuba are placing increasing pressure¶ for the United States to end the
embargo. First, U.S. energy companies¶ are eager to compete for access to Cuban oil reserves.33¶ Secondly, fears of a Cuban oil spill are argued
to warrant U.S.¶ investment and technology.34 Finally, the concern over Cuban¶ offshore drilling renews cries that the embargo is largely a
failure¶ and harms human rights.
( ) Old studies wrong – large untapped reserves exist.
Schenk ‘10
Christopher J. Schenk is Project Chief of the U.S. National Oil and Gas Assessment – ¶ GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCOVERED OIL AND GAS
RESOURCES OF THE NORTH CUBA BASIN, CUBA – http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1029/pdf/OF10-1029.pdf
The potential
for undiscovered petroleum resources of the North Cuba Basin historically has focused on
the heavy oil fields of the onshore fold and thrust belt (Echevarria-Rodriguez and others, 1991; Pindell, 1991; Petzet, 2000; Oil
and Gas Journal, 1993, 2000, 2002,¶ 2005), but recent efforts have focused on the offshore potential (fig.7) (Vassalli
and others,¶ 2003; Moretti and others, 2003a,b; Magnier and others, 2004). This study indicates that the offshore of the
North Cuba Basin might have significant potential for undiscovered oil and gas resources (Schenk, 2008).
2NC-1NR impact wall
Quick Saudi prolif ensures accidents and miscalc–that’s Edelman.
That will result in Extinction
Toon ‘7
(Owen B, chair – Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences – Colorado University, climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acp-7-1973-2007.pdf)
To an increasing extent, people are congregating in the world’s great urban centers, creating megacities with populations
exceeding 10 million individuals. At the same time, advanced technology has designed nuclear explosives of such small size they can be easily
transported in a car, small plane or boat to the heart of a city. We demonstrate here that a
single detonation in the 15 kiloton
range can produce urban fatalities approaching one million in some cases, and casualties exceeding one million.
Thousands of small weapons still exist in the arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, and there are at least six other countries with substantial nuclear
weapons inventories. In all, thirty-three
countries control sufficient amounts of highly enriched uranium or
assemble nuclear explosives. A conflict between any of these countries involving 50-100 weapons with yields of
15 kt has the potential to create fatalities rivaling those of the Second World War. Moreover, even a single surface
plutonium to
nuclear explosion, or an air burst in rainy conditions, in a city center is likely to cause the entire metropolitan area to be abandoned at least for
decades owing to infrastructure damage and radioactive contamination. As the aftermath of hurricane Katrina in Louisiana suggests, the
economic consequences of even a localized nuclear catastrophe would most likely have severe national and international economic
consequences. Striking effects
result even from relatively small nuclear attacks because low yield
detonations are most effective against city centers where business and social activity as well as population are
concentrated. Rogue nations and terrorists would be most likely to strike there. Accordingly, an organized attack
on the U.S. by a small nuclear state, or terrorists supported by such a state, could generate casualties comparable to
those once predicted for a full-scale nuclear “counterforce” exchange in a superpower conflict. Remarkably, the
estimated quantities of smoke generated by attacks totaling about one megaton of nuclear explosives could lead to
significant global climate perturbations (Robock et al., 2007). While we did not extend our casualty and damage predictions to include
potential medical, social or economic impacts following the initial explosions, such analyses have been performed in the past for large-scale
nuclear war scenarios (Harwell and Hutchinson, 1985). Such a study should be carried out as well for the present scenarios and physical
outcomes.
Most probable impact.
Russell ‘9
James A. Russell, Senior Lecturer, National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School, ‘9 (Spring) “Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects
for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East” IFRI, Proliferation Papers, #26, http://www.ifri.org/downloads/PP26_Russell_2009.pdf
Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in the bargaining
framework that can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the presence of non-state actors that introduce
unpredictability into relationships between the antagonists; (3) incompatible assumptions about the
structure of the deterrent relationship that makes the bargaining framework strategically unstable; (4)
perceptions by Israel and the United States that its window of opportunity for military action is
closing, which could prompt a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Iran’s response to pre-emptive attacks could
involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United States; (6) the lack of a
communications framework to build trust and cooperation among framework participants. These
systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all suggest that escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a
result of miscalculation or the pressures of wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine
scenarios under which a conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional antagonists would
consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake to believe the
nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an
unstable strategic framework. Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the
probability of war – a war in which escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such a war
starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their own and decision-making would consequently be shaped
in unpredictable ways. The international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent such
an outcome, which would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with substantial
risk for the entire world.
Miscalc in the Mid-East is especially likely.
Kapila ‘9
(Subhash, Royal British Army Staff College, MA Defense Science – Madras U., PhD Strategic Studies – Allahabad U., Consultant in Strategic
Affairs – South Asia Analysis Group, South Asia Analysis Group Paper # 3114, “MIDDLE EAST 2009: POLITICAL DYNAMICS STIRRED BY UNITED
STATES”, http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers32%5Cpaper3114.html)
More than any other strategic regions of the globe , the Middle East in the 21st Century presents the
dubious prospect of being the most conflict-prone region globally. Global armed conflicts or strategic jostling
can arise at any moment in this region not only because of intra-regional rivalries but more for reasons
connected to energy security, control of strategic choke points and nuclear and WMD proliferation.
Besides these major issues the propensity of major conservative Islamic countries not to be pro-active in controlling or liquidating Islamic Jihadi
impulses to proliferate to threaten US and the West, are another complicating feature.
A-to “Saudis won’t ever prolif”
( ) Aff ev doesn’t assume perceived breakdown of US-Saudi ties—that causes prolif.
Lippman ‘11
(Sr. Adjunct Scholar-Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.susris.com/2011/08/05/saudi-arabia’s-nuclear-policy-lippman/)
So let us suppose that Saudi
Arabia’s currently testy relationship with the United States deteriorated to the point
where the Saudis no longer felt they could rely on Washington’s protection. If the Saudis could no longer assume
that the armed forces of the United States are their ultimate weapon against external threats, might they not wish to acquire a
different ultimate weapon? With that in mind, could not a reasonable case be made in the Saudis’ minds for the development of an
alternative security relationship, and perhaps a nuclear agreement, with another major power should relations with the United States
deteriorate? A possible candidate for such a role would of course be China, a nuclear power that has a close relationship with Saudi Arabia’s ally
Pakistan and a growing need for imported oil. Sufficiently remote from the Gulf not to pose a direct threat to Saudi Arabia, and no longer part
of any international communist movement, China could theoretically be an attractive partner. This is not to say that Saudi Arabia is actually
seeking such a relationship with any country other the United States, or that China would undertake such a mission, but to be unaware of any
such outreach is not to exclude it from the realm of possibility. THE STRATEGY GAP The Saudi Arabian armed forces have
never
developed a coherent national security doctrine that could provide a serious basis for a decision to acquire nuclear
weapons. But to summarize the reasons why Saudi Arabia might pursue such a course: it is a rich but
weak country with armed forces of suspect competence; outmanned by combat-hardened, truculent and potentially nuclear-armed
neighbors; and no longer confident that it can count on its American protector. Even before the Iraq War, Richard L.
Russell of the National Defense University argued in a 2001 essay arguing the case for Saudi acquisition of nuclear capability that “It would be
imprudent, to say the least, for Riyadh to make the cornerstone of [its] national-security posture out of an assumption that the United States
would come to the kingdom’s defense under any and all circumstances.” It might be even more imprudent now. “From Riyadh’s perspective,”
continued Russell, “the acquisition of nuclear weapons and secure delivery systems would appear logical and even necessary.” Those “secure
delivery systems,” Russell argued, would not be aircraft, which are vulnerable to ground defenses, but “ballistic-missile delivery systems that
would stand a near-invulnerable chance of penetrating enemy airspace” — namely, the CSS-2s. Military experts say it is theoretically possible
that the missiles
could be made operational, modernized, and retrofitted with nuclear warheads acquired from
China, Pakistan or perhaps, within a few years, North Korea. Any attempt to do so, however, would present immense technical and political
difficulties — so much so that Saudi Arabia might emerge less secure, rather than more.
( ) Lack of oil relations causes rapid prolif
Black ‘9
(Major Chris, master’s program at the Joint Forces Staff College, “Post Oil America and a renewable energy policy leads to the abrogation of the
Middle East to China.,” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA530125&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
All of these factors
have slowly led to Saudi Arabia wanting to assume a more independent role in its own
security.181 In 2007, Saudi Arabia brokered a deal between Fatah and Hamas and hosted an Arab League Summit which they had declined
to attend the two previous years. Also in 2007, King Abdullah also hosted Iran’s President Ahmadinejad and canceled a state dinner with
President Bush.182 Recently Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faial warned Iran on two separate occasions to stop meddling in inter-Arab
affairs and has urged Arabs to unify clearly concerned with Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.183 Additionally, this
has brought
about a renewed emphasis by the Saudis to acquire from Pakistan both Chinese-designed missiles and dual-key
Pakistani nuclear warheads which is a major concern by the US.184 Saudi Arabia is now flexing their muscle in the Middle East and
has taken an increasing role in managing their own affairs. This scenario could lead to either cooperation or competition between the US and
China in the region. Further, in this scenario,
Saudi Arabia will increasingly align with the countries who are buying
their oil . A geopolitical shift will begin with the rise of China in the Persian Gulf region secondary to a diminishing
American presence, which will intensify Saudi Arabian concerns for their security.