OSC Drilling Case Neg
SQ Solves
Production/dependence
US Shale oil supplies sufficient
Brian Swint 14
Brian Swint,1/16/14, London writer at Bloomberg,. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-15/u-s-will-be-energy-self-sufficient-by-2035on-shale-bp-says.html
“
Both oil and gas import concentration will increase massively in Asia and Europe ,” BP Chief Economist Christof
Ruehl said on a conference call. “About 80 percent of all traded oil will go into Asia.
“World energy demand will rise by 41 percent by
2035 from 2012 , a slower pace than the 52 percent gain in the last two decades, BP said in the report. Ninety-five percent of demand growth will come
from emerging economies, defined as those not in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, and more than half the increase will come from
China and India. Spare production capacity from OPEC is forecast to surge to 6 million barrels a day by about 2018 as the group cuts output to offset rising global
supplies, Ruehl said. That’s the highest since the 1980s. The group’s unused capacity was at 3.37 million barrels a day in November, according to the International
Energy Agency. Unrest and supply cuts within OPEC nations are likely to persist, Ruehl said.“These things can last much longer than expected,” he said. “The
economic situation in OPEC countries will come under increasing strain. That, of course, sows the seeds for the kind of unrest which leads to supply disruptions
which we have seen over the last three years
.”The shale revolution will make the U.S. a net exporter of gas in 2017,
according to the report. Other countries may still be slow to harness shale resources, with North
America still accounting for 65 percent of global tight oil and about 70 percent of global shale gas
production in 2035. North America will provide 99 percent of the world’s shale gas through 2016.
Shale oil makes US self-sufficient and less reliant on OPEC
BBC 13
British Broadcasting Channel, 5/14/13, Business, http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22524597
Over the next five years, the US will account for a third of new oil supplies , according to the
International Energy Agency (IEA).The US will change from the world's leading importer of oil to a net
exporter. Demand for oil from Middle-East oil producers is set to slow as a result." North America has set off a supply shock
that is sending ripples throughout the world," said IEA executive director Maria van der Hoeven. Canadian oil sands production
is also contributing to the "supply shock", the IEA said. The surge in US production will reshape the whole industry,
according to the IEA, which made the prediction in its closely-watched bi-annual report examining
trends in oil supply and demand over the next five years. The IEA said it expected the US to overtake
Russia as the world's biggest gas producer by 2015 and to become "all but self-sufficient" in its energy
needs by about 2035 . The rise in US production means the world's reliance on oil from traditional oil
producing countries in the Middle East, which make up Opec (the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries ),
would end soon,
according to the report. US production is set to grow to a level that is some 3.9 million barrels of oil per day (bpd)
higher in 2018 than it was in 2012, accounting for some two thirds of the predicted growth in traditional non-Opec production, according to the
IEA. Continue reading the main story “The regional fallout from the 'Arab Spring' is taking a toll on investment and capacity growth “Meanwhile,
global oil demand is set to increase by 8% which would be met mainly by non-Opec supplies, the report said. The IEA still expects production
capacity among traditional Opec suppliers in the Middle East to continue to grow over the next five years, but at a slower rate. Opec capacity,
which counts for 35% of today's global oil output, is expected to rise by 1.75 million bpd to 36.75 million bpd in 2018, about 750,000 bpd less
than predicted in the IEA's 2012 forecast. The IEA cites the "growing insecurity in North and Sub-Saharan Africa" in the wake of the Arab Spring
uprisings as a key reason for the slowdown."The regional fallout from the 'Arab Spring' is taking a toll on investment and capacity growth," the
IEA said. The sharp
rise in US oil production is largely thanks to shale oil, a product many have hailed as
the saviour of the US energy market. Fracking , the process of blasting water at high pressure into shale rock to release oil
(or gas) held within it, has become widespread in the US.
Fracking solve oil dependence and bridge for renewables transition
Nunez ’13 [“How Has Fracking Changed Our Future?”, Christina Nunez, producer of energy content at National
Geographic, November 11, 2013, National Geographic,
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/energy/great-energy-challenge/big-energyquestion/how-has-fracking-changed-our-future/ //MER]
The use of hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and gas from the earth dates back to the 1940s, but only in the past
few years has "fracking" become an energy buzzword, alluding primarily to the shale gas boom in the United States
and all of the controversy that has accompanied it. Fracking-the high-pressure injection of water, chemicals and
sand into shale deposits to release the gas and oil trapped within the rock-in recent years has been combined with
horizontal drilling and other improvements in technology to harvest stores of gas and oil that previously were
thought commercially unfeasible to access. (See interactive: "Breaking Fuel from the Rock") The implications of
this sea change are debatable, but the impact is undeniable. In the United States, oil production last year
reached its highest level in 14 years, thanks in part to output from North Dakota's Bakken Shale, and is
expected to keep rising. Natural gas production, already at new highs thanks to shale gas, is expected to
grow 44 percent in the U.S. between 2011 and 2040. (See "Natural Gas Nation: EIA Sees U.S. Future Shaped
by Fracking.") Now countries around the world, including China, the United Kingdom and South Africa, are
eyeing shale development as the potential key to unlock a similar windfall of homegrown energy. Debate
rages on about whether these worldwide reserves can be tapped safely, and whether environmental damage from
fracking natural gas will outweigh the gains from using a fuel that is cleaner than oil or coal, but remains a fossil
fuel nonetheless. A few viewpoints on both sides of the issue follow. Positive impacts of fracking " The United
States is in the midst of the 'unconventional revolution in oil and gas' that, it becomes increasingly
apparent, goes beyond energy itself. Today, the industry supports 1.7m jobs - a considerable
accomplishment given the relative newness of the technology. That number could rise to 3 million by 2020.
In 2012, this revolution added $62 billion to federal and state government revenues, a number that we
project could rise to about $113 billion by 2020.2 It is helping to stimulate a manufacturing renaissance in the
United States, improving the competitive position of the United States in the global economy, and beginning to
affect global geopolitics." —Daniel Yergin, vice chair of global consulting firm IHS, in February testimony
before Congress "Natural gas is not a permanent solution to ending our addiction imported oil . It is a bridge
fuel to slash our oil dependence while buying us time to develop new technologies that will ultimately
replace fossil transportation fuels. Natural gas is the critical puzzle piece RIGHT NOW. It will help us to
keep more of the $350 to $450 billion we spend on imported oil every year at home, where it can power
our economy and pay for our investments in a smart grid, wind and solar energy, and increased energy
efficiency. By investing in alternative energies while utilizing natural gas for transportation and energy
generation, America can decrease its dependence on OPEC oil, develop the cutting-edge know-how to make
wind and solar technology viable, and keep more money at home to pay for the whole thing." —Pickens Plan, a
site outlining BP Capital founder T. Boone Pickens' proposed energy strategy "My town was dying. This is a fullscale mining operation, and I'm all for it. Now we can get back to work." —Brent Sanford, mayor of Watford City, a
town at the center of the North Dakota oil boom, in "The New Oil Landscape" (NGM March 2013 issue)
Status quo drilling solves economy, oil prices, dependence and Russia
conflict
Tundo ’13 [“Can Fracking Solve the World’s Energy Crisis?”, Alberto Tundo, reporter for GB Times, October 24,
2013, GB Times, http://gbtimes.com/world/can-fracking-solve-worlds-energy-crisis //MER]
“Fracking” -- as the process of hydraulic fracturing is commonly referred to -- is an unconventional way of
extracting natural gas. It involves shooting a pressurized mix of water, sand and chemicals down to the shale,
breaking it, thereby releasing the gas “trapped” under it. The practice has divided public and political opinion - the
distance between those willing to exploit it and those opposed to it is as large as the ocean that divides the US and
Europe. The US is an enthusiastic proponent of the technique, given that it provides the country with more
energy independence. Europe, through the European Union, cites serious concerns about fracking's
environmental impact as the reason why it is strongly limiting its use. Domestic and geopolitical benefits The
“fracking revolution” has brought some valuable fruits to the American economy. According to an analysis
by IHS CERA, in 2012 alone, some 2.1 million jobs were created, raising the US government's tax revenue by
75 billion dollars and giving American families an extra 1200 dollars. Energy prices have also fallen. The
US Energy Information Administration (EIA), reported that more than one-quarter of US natural gas
production was from shale. This figure is expected to rise to fifty percent by 2035. Despite some loud
protests in the States, it would seem fracking has become a major part of American life and the economy.
However, it has profound effects beyond America’s borders too. In boosting its internal fuel production, the US
has almost become energy self-sufficient, cutting its dependence on the Middle East and putting into
question the future relevance of the region. This, one might observe, has given America more freedom to play
hardball when dealing with issues like the Iranian nuclear issue or the Egyptian revolution. At the same time, this
has facilitated a further shift in foreign policy focus, as seen in the ‘pivot to Asia’. An indirect consequence has
been the lowering of global gas prices. This in turn has weakened the main instrument of political influence
possessed by Russia, and hit the most important source of income for Moscow . At the same time, with China’s
dependence on oil imports is increasing, the Middle East is becoming more and more salient in Beijing’s foreign
policy calculations. Incidentally, the vast amount of water needed for fracking make it somewhat difficult for China
to use the process, suffering as it is from massive water shortages.
shale revolution solves increased production
Brown 13 Katie Brown October 15, 2013 Shale Shifts U.S. Away from Oil Shocks--Energy In Depth—writer for Energy in Depth
With the recent boom in domestic oil production, many have been wondering: will the United States ever suffer from
another oil shock like the one we experienced in the 1970s? That’s exactly the question raised this month by the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which released a brief addressing the issue: U.S. policymakers have been concerned
about the country’s dependence on imported energy since World War II. Those concerns were highlighted in the
1970s when episodes of sharply rising oil prices led to recessions, economic stagnation, and high inflation. However, recent
gains in U.S. oil and natural gas production are changing the dialogue about U.S. energy strengths and
vulnerabilities. The “ shale revolution” has stimulated tremendous production of oil and natural gas in
the United States. The revolution is the product of advances in oil and natural gas production
technology— notably, a new combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. These
technological advances combined with high oil and gas prices have enabled increased production of the
abundant oil and natural gas resources in the United States.
Production/econ
Shale oil solves oil dependence and the economy in the SQuo
Nyquist 13
Scott Nyquist is a director at McKinsey and Company’s Houston office. McKinsey and Company is a top global
management consulting firm headquartered in the U.S. The firm serves as an adviser to businesses, governments,
and institutions, August 2013, “The US Growth Opportunity in Shale Oil and Gas”,
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_studies/the_us_growth_opportunity_in_shale_oil_and_gas.
We think this
shale-gas technology boom will continue to have significant consequences for our
economy . It’s going to continue with the gas area, but it’s also expanding into the oil arena. The same technology of
horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is being used to extract what’s called light tight oil from very
difficult-to-access shale and tight rocks in the US as well. And the combination of this oil boom, along with the gas boom,
is transforming the energy landscape. Throughout my whole lifetime, we’ve considered that we’re going to be net importers of
energy and net importers of oil, in particular. And through these technologies, we’ve now had significant growth of light tight oil—50 percent
growth per year. And we
can even envision a world where the US could be net exporters of energy by 2020. It’s
a significant shift in the way we think about energy security, and the way we think about the impact of
energy prices on our economy. The US now has an abundant supply of natural gas, and this natural gas
can be used in energy- and feedstock-intensive industries such as chemicals. We see ethylene production going up, we see
polyvinyl chloride production going up, and we see fertilizer production going up. The steel industry should also benefit from
cheap supplies of natural gas. These aspects of the economy will create much-needed manufacturing jobs to
help that segment of the economy that is particularly hard hit by the economic recession. Fully capturing this opportunity will
require an enormous capital investment. Some $1.4 trillion of capital investment will be required for infrastructure in order to put in place
these new jobs. This capital investment, on its own, will create a temporary set of jobs—some 1.6 million jobs—just to build out the
infrastructure required to put in place these new manufacturing plants. This, on its own, will be an enormous surge to the economy—again,
particularly in this timeframe where we need these kinds of manufacturing-oriented construction jobs for our economy. The International
Energy Agency now projects that the US will become a larger producer of oil than Saudi Arabia. This is an enormous transformation for the
United States in the global oil markets. In 2013, the United States imported less oil than any time since 1987. This will have a significant impact
on the overall global oil balances, given the reduced need of oil in the United States. However, there are risks associated with the production of
shale oil and gas. In particular, there are several environmental risks that are drawing lots of attention from both environmentalists and the
industry. Many in the industry, along with environmentalists, are very worried about water contamination. There’s the risk that, in the process
of drilling so many wells, the water could be contaminated. There are also risks that increased drilling could lead to increased quantities of
methane leaking from the drilling, which could add to greenhouse gas emissions. Land use is also a big issue and concern for both
environmentalists and the industry. Large tracts of land will be needed just to house the trucks and other equipment required to drill all these
wells. And these trucks create noise, they create smog, and the local communities will not always be excited by having all this equipment
around, particularly when land is located in urban areas. This is a concern for both the industry and environmentalists. The good news is that,
with the environmentalists putting so much pressure on the industry, the industry is responding by exploring new techniques and new
technologies that can enable them to reduce the overall environmental impact of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. If knowledge is
shared across the industry, these new technologies could lead to a continuous improvement that would reduce the overall risk over time. And
at the moment, this intense scrutiny on the industry is actually having a positive impact—improving the overall efficiency of the industry and
reducing risk. Bottom line: This
is an exciting game changer for the US economy. It can create jobs through
investment in the energy sector itself and through the ripple effects in other parts of the economy. It
will increase the overall GDP of the country, which will increase the overall wealth and well-being of
many of its citizens. And finally, it could help the mind-set shift in terms of the overall energy security for
the nation, which will give people more confidence that they can operate without fear of being
insecure when it comes to the country’s overall energy needs.
Production/Leadership
Shale oil solves production and US Leadership
Castro 7/20
Mr. Jorge Gerard Castro is a Partner and Portfolio Manager at Lombardia Capital Partners, LLC, and was previously
the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operations Officer and Vice Chairman from 2003 to 2005. Mr. Castro is
responsible for the large cap value strategy at the firm. Previously, Mr. Castro served as the Founding Principal,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer at CIC/HCM Asset Management from 1990 to 2003. He
founded the firm in 1989. Prior to this, Mr. Castro worked at Goldman Sachs & Co. from 1985 to 1990 and J.P.
Morgan from 1983 to 1985. He serves as a Member of the Board of Trustees at Milton Academy. Mr. Castro serves
as the Vice Chairman of Programs and a Director for the New America Alliance. He has been an Independent
Director of Infinity Property & Casualty Corporation since August 1, 2003. For six years, Mr. Castro served as a
Director of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. He served as the Chairman of the Ed Fund of
the State of California. Mr. Castro is a Chartered Financial Analyst. He is a 1975 graduate of the Milton Academy in
Boston, attended the Loyola High School in Los Angeles, and attended the St. Matthias Elementary School in
Huntington Park, California. Mr. Castro is a 1979 Magna Cum Laude graduate of the Princeton University and was a
Ph.D. candidate in Government at Harvard University from 1979 to 1983. He completed the Introduction to
Business Program for Ph.D.'s at the Harvard University, 20 July 2014,
http://watchingamerica.com/News/243005/shale-gas-reveals-us-leadership/.
The fall of Lehman Brothers on Wall Street in September 2008 unleashed a global financial crisis, triggering a noticeable decline in American
power at the global level. Seventeen years of U.S. hegemony, which had begun with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, came to an end.
Today, there are signs that a new cycle of global geopolitics is underway — a cycle in which power is being
consolidated ahead of events — such as occurred with the emergence of the new technology revolution around the
“cloud” or cloud computing. The current corollary is the new industrial revolution based in the U.S. and Germany. Both the cloud and
the new industrial revolution were born primarily in the U.S. — demonstrating the special capacity of
the U.S. to get ahead of the future — by creating it. This phenomenon is happening with American shale
gas and shale oil, which did not exist 10 years ago. Suddenly, the innovative technique of combining horizontal
drilling with hydraulic fracturing has led to increased production at the Eagle Ford shale field in
southeast Texas from 15,000 barrels per day in 2010 to 838,000 barrels per day in the first four months
of 2014. Production of U.S. crude has increased by 60 percent since 2008. Oil imports now meet just 35 percent of
U.S. demand, down from 60 percent in 2005. According to predictions, the U.S. will be fully self-sufficient by 2030, which could be fastforwarded to 2020 if the U.S. and Canada are the frame of reference. The entire net increase in global production of crude between 2005 and
2013 had its source in the Eagle Ford and Bakken formation in Texas and North Dakota, respectively. The geopolitical impact of North American
shale gas has come quickly, and it has changed the global strategic equation. For this reason, the price of crude has been stable in spite of the
collapse of the eastern Mediterranean — Iraq, Syria and Lebanon — which caused an immense geopolitical vacuum in the most strategic region
on the planet. In June, when ISIL — Islamic militants — took control of Mosul in Iraq, Brent crude rose to $115 per barrel. But then, the price fell
to $107 per barrel despite Iraq being the fourth largest oil producer in the world and the second largest member of OPEC — at 3.3 million
barrels per day — and could be responsible for more than 60 percent of the global oil organization’s growth through 2019. Despite the strategic
nature of Iraq and the eastern Mediterranean, there are no signs of an impending oil shock in the global system in contrast to the situation in
1973, and again in 1979 — when the price of crude quadrupled in 1973 and then rose again fourfold in 1979. As a result, the developed world
suffered its most serious economic crisis since the 1930s, with the U.S. gross domestic product falling by 6 percent between 1973 and 1975. The
challenge this new global political cycle faces is not Islamic militants or the clash of civilizations, but rather that 70 percent of the 2 billion
people who will be born worldwide in the next 40 years will belong to the new middle class, a group whose numbers will rise to 30 billion by
2030. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, this population growth will demand a 300 percent increase in
real per capita income worldwide –— and a doubling of consumption. These figures are not a prediction but the confirmation of a trend — an
unstoppable trend. The question is not whether this will occur, but rather whether the planet will be devastated as a result. What is clear is that
the status quo is not sustainable.
It is also certain that during the current global transition, the U.S. is once
again leading the charge.
Shale oil boosts US Leadership especially in China
Kris Michaud, Buccino and Chenelle 14
Kris Michaud, Joe Buccino, and Stephen Chenelle, Michaud: Navy Commander Kris Michaud is an Information
Warfare Officer assigned to the National Security Agency, Buccino: Army Major Joe Buccino is an Army Public
Affairs Officer serving a fellowship at the Georgetown University School of Continuing Studies, Chenelle, Air Force
Major Stephen Chenelle is a senior Air Battle manager serving as Command Executive Officer at Joint Interagency
Task Force-South in Key West, Fl. He is an Evaluator Air Surveillance Officer with over 1,800 flying hours in two
variants of the E-3, 3/14/14, “The Impact of Domestic Shale Oil Production on U.S. Military Strategy and its
Implications for U.S.-China Maritime Partnership,” Small Wars Journal, http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/theimpact-of-domestic-shale-oil-production-on-us-military-strategy-and-its-implications-fo.
While every president from Nixon to Barrack Obama publicly espoused the notion of ending American reliance on foreign oil as a means of
strengthening our strategic position in the world, drilling for shale oil was only recently widely implemented. While much
of the technology required for capturing shale oil existed in some form since the early 1900’s and the first recorded act of hydraulic fracturing—
a rather complicated and environmentally messy process necessary for extraction of shale oil—occurred in 1947. Shale oil, however, was
neither economically nor politically viable until the late 2000’s. In 2008, as global oil prices rose to an all-time high, "Drill, baby, drill!" became
the Republican campaign slogan introduced at the Republican National Convention by then-Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele
(Carnevale, 2008).
The wholesale price of oil was an incredible $150 per barrel, a 12 percent jump in less than one
year.
To put this in perspective, the previous record was $96 per barrel in 2003, a 14 percent increase over the previous year spurred by the
onset of the war in Iraq and the Venezuelan coup attempt (Kliesen, 2008). At a cost of production at approximately $86 per barrel, shale oil
was now economically feasible and America found itself shifting to a new energy paradigm (Francu, et al., 2007). By 2012 the gap between U.S.
oil production and oil consumption reached its smallest level in two decades, with 92 percent of the increase in production resulting from shale
oil drilling, as demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2 (Ratner & Tiemann, 2014). This trend should continue as extraction from vast shale oil reserves
in the U.S. becomes increasingly profitable for private companies (Maugeri, 2013). In 2012 the Energy Information Administration (EIA)
estimated the four largest oil fields in the U.S. contain approximately 58 billion barrels of crude oil, an increase of its 2011 estimation of 33
billion barrels (United States Energy Information Agency, 2014).
Without a reliance on Middle Eastern oil, the U.S. is
less inclined to conduct military intervention within the region, as domestic oil production allows the
U.S. to serve other interests.
It is worth noting that the extraction of shale oil is politically and environmentally complex with many
considerations for its evolution over the next several decades. With impact on air quality, water consumption, water contamination, and local
communities, shale oil’s future within the U.S. is a subject rife with contention. Controversy and environmental impact notwithstanding, the
Shale oil is promising
and the current American oil boom is the initial manifestation of its potential. America is, after all, in the
midst of a debt crisis and shale oil has the potential to improve the U.S. balance of trade and generate
job growth and revenues in producing states. Perspective on the role of oil globally is critical to an
understanding of the context of America’s position relative to the Middle East given increased U.S.
domestic production. Oil is a fungible commodity, having equal value independent of source and demand destination. A decline in
more oil the U.S. produces domestically, the less the country is required to rely on oil from outside its borders.
global demand by the U.S. can be offset by an increase in global demand by another country. Over the past decade, with an eye toward
removing assets from the Middle East upon completion of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, America reduced consumption and imported
most of its oil from Canada, Venezuela, and Nigeria rather than the Middle East. This has not impacted the price of global oil as declining U.S.
demand has been offset by increased demand from Asian-Pacific countries for the same oil source. This global nature of the oil market requires
a credible military presence, U.S. or otherwise, to ensure access for all nations to benefit. Since 1957, Saudi Arabia’s global role has been to
pump as much oil as necessary to keep prices moderate and stable in return for security guarantees. Therefore, ensuring freedom of
movement through the Strait of Hormuz, as prescribed though the Carter Doctrine, is the main reason the U.S. allocated forces to the Middle
East. As
the U.S. grows less dependent on the Middle East for oil, the fungible nature of oil means the U.S.
must still ensure a stable price for itself and allies who do not have domestic production. Assured access
to oil therefore reduces energy supply shocks, which is key to the U.S. energy strategy of affordability.
The global nature of the oil market and the impact of supply insecurity within other major energy markets influence the globalized economy
and ensures the United States must retain a keen eye on the Arabian Gulf and, by extension, the entire Middle Eastern region. Further, Iran
and threats to Israel will likely require continued U.S. military focus on the area even as U.S. oil imports from the region wither. The problem,
then, cuts both ways; domestic production frees the U.S. military force structure to align with and be shaped by strategic objectives outside the
Middle East, but there is a limit to that freedom. The oil market necessitates an American strategy that includes supervision of the global
commons, specifically maritime space. Maintaining free passage of energy products through maritime choke points is an explicit national
interest of major global powers and the U.S. continues to commit naval resources to the most significant of these chokepoints, specifically the
Since the U.S. cannot completely abandon the
Middle East, leveraging its shale oil reserves to encourage more dependent countries to assist in the role
Straits of Hormuz, Malacca, and Singapore (Emmerson and Stevens, 2012).
of global policeman becomes increasingly attractive. China, with its expanding military and growing
demand for Middle Eastern oil and militaries is an obvious choice to assist in securing these choke points. The new
national security strategy, outlined in President Obama’s 2012 “Priorities for 21st Century Defense” adopts a strategic rebalance to the AsiaPacific region (U.S. Department of Defense, 2012). This strategy is an outgrowth of the economic rise of China during the Cold War and the
globalized economy’s linkage to the region. The policy is facilitated by, but not based on, America’s ability to sustain oil supplies domestically
and deflate our reliance on Middle Eastern oil, along with our extraction from conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. To be sure the shift of resources
to the Asia-Pacific is not directly linked to domestic oil production; Asia has been neglected strategically and is now a tinderbox with China and
North Korea as strategic threats. The Asia-Pacific is the world’s center of gravity for population, military dominance, economic productivity, and
technological advancements. China is poised to replace America as the largest consumer on the global oil market (United States Energy
This trend indicates a marked shift in the future of U.S. energy geopolitics, national
security strategy, and foreign policy. China, which lacks domestic production capacity to keep pace with its economic expansion,
Information Agency, 2014).
has become an evolving power with concerns about sea shipping lanes, particularly the Strait of Hormuz and Strait of Malacca. China imports
the majority of its oil from Saudi Arabia and Iran (United States Energy Information Agency, 2014). In 2011, of the 17 million barrels of oil per
day that flowed through the Strait of Hormuz, 10.4 million were shipped through the Strait of Malacca, with almost half bound for China, as
depicted in Figure 3 (United States Energy Information Agency, 2014). China and the U.S. are amidst a global paradigm of financial
interdependence. They are the primary and secondary economic actors in the world with great opportunity for international cooperation:
China holds nearly 1.5 trillion dollars in U.S. Treasury bonds; China’s growth is due in some part to American investments and massive exports
from China to America; American corporations reap benefits from the cheap labor force in China (Katz, 2014).
One of the greatest
opportunities is for China and America to share the policing of the global commons. America’s
decreased reliance on foreign oil facilitates this option . China’s current naval strategy is regionally focused and based
heavily on coastal defense; however, it is evolving into a global strategy facilitated by the expansion and protection of sea routes, an effort
aimed at protecting its shipping (Saez, 2013). Diplomatically, the United States can leverage or compliment China’s growing role in securing the
commons, perhaps establishing an increased Chinese role. Militarily, U.S. and Chinese navies, operating under a collaborative agreement, can
develop a relationship to protect shared interests in maritime energy shipments, both in Asia and along supply routes bringing energy to Asia
from Africa, Russia, and the Middle East. The U.S. Army is establishing a dialogue and an exchange program with the Chinese People’s
Liberation Army and such engagements may extend to other branches of the military (Wong and Jacobs, 2014). This coordination may
galvanize security commitments from China while allowing U.S. military planners to better match available funds to feasible strategic objectives
for maritime security operations. Such cooperation with China would also reduce the potential for misunderstanding, confrontation and conflict
with the U.S. To a limited extent, anti-piracy cooperation between the United States and China is already occurring. To be sure, the U.S.
military does not historically employ forces toward mutual strategic objectives with a growing competitor or near rival. The fact that the U.S.
military is getting smaller while the Chinese People’s Liberation Army is growing is both a concern and an opportunity. China currently lacks the
naval capacity of the U.S. and America will remain the dominant force in the Pacific Ocean for the next decade, which means the U.S. military
has the ability to facilitate the flow of energy to China, but this may not remain true in two decades. The U.S. is rapidly reducing its military
across all branches, and an increased Chinese maritime hand in the region would not only ease the burden on the U.S. military as a global police
force, but will ensure U.S.-Chinese national strategies grow dependent on each other (MacDaniel, 2012). On the Korean peninsula, China and
U.S. share the desire for stability and peace. North Korean instigation and a possible U.S. response is a major concern for China, which is reliant
on stability on its periphery. The regional message facilitated by increased military cooperation between China and the United States could
deflate North Korean saber-rattling. Chinese assertiveness in the seas could further mute North Korean aggression. There is great risk
associated with allowing security of the Straits of Hormuz and Malacca to fall to China and allowing an emerging power the capacity to shape
the global oil market. This risk, however, is largely mitigated by the fact that China has a greater need for stability in these straits than any
other nation. China must increase oil imports to keep pace with its growing economy and must therefore expand its regional maritime power
to a global one. Further, China surely appreciates the U.S.’ history of force employment toward its strategic resources. There are, perhaps,
greater risks for both nations in failing to partner to stabilize the maritime lines of commerce as their economies and national strategies grow
dependent. It is also worth noting that while the US has long supported open sea lanes, China shows some signs of wanting preferential access
to, or control of, the sea lanes. The relationship the US builds with China must be one based on free maritime access for all. Both parties must
reassure Japan and South Korea that they, too, can use the sea lanes. Any U.S./China agreement must ensure that if given a larger maritime
role, China will not give itself preferential access, as this would pose problems for other importing nations. Indeed, China’s current pollution
problem, resultant from its overreliance on coal, almost makes increased partnership with the U.S. more valuable. Chinese reliance on coal
created pollution that now impacts economy and life expectancy and is perhaps the largest domestic problem within the country. The People’s
Republic of China must move off coal and toward increased oil imports. Outside its borders, China’s major weakness is the Strait of Malacca, a
geographic location that, if blocked, could suffocate the world’s second largest economy. The strait is the single point of failure for China and
the country’s isolationist policy has placed it at risk there. America, projected to be one of the world’s largest energy exporters in the next two
decades, will have a shared interest in keeping the strait open for its energy exports. A Chinese-U.S. partnership to provide access may make
Japan question its long-standing relationship with the United States. Japanese perception represents element of risk within an American
commitment to work with China toward maritime security. Japan, however, has very limited oil resources and relies heavily on imports from
the Middle East. An increased Chinese hand in securing the global commons could enhance cooperation between the two countries in the
coming decades. The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan supersedes any maritime security
arrangement between the U.S. and China. China, Japan, and the U.S. have an interest in combatting piracy and a maritime security agreement
to do so would not make these countries formal allies. Nor would such an arrangement solve Chinese/Japanese territorial disputes; the larger
problems between China and Japan would remain unresolved but U.S./Japanese relations would continue unhindered. Ultimately, China, Japan,
and the United States have an interest in creating an environment wherein countries can exercise trade without coming into conflict. This,
indeed, is the point at which all major players in the Asia-Pacific can cooperate. The
U.S. military will maintain a force posture
in the Middle East to protect U.S. interests and allies from instability and to ensure a foreign hand does
not restrict access to oil. However, the Carter Doctrine will no longer shape the alignment of the U.S.
military. While the U.S. will maintain an interest in ensuring a free flow of oil to its allies, domestic shale
oil is emerging as a powerful element in the global military-economic dynamic, one that allows American
energy independence and facilitates the U.S.’ strategic rebalance to the Asian-Pacific region at a time of
military force reduction. Further, shale oil may allow the United States to forge a military partnership
with China, a growing power heavily reliant on imported oil, toward security of the global commons.
A2: Unsustainable
Shale revolution sustainable—better alternative
Morse 14 EDWARD L. MORSE May/June 2014—Global Head of Commodities Research at Citi. Foreign Affairs Council Website
Welcome to the Revolution Why Shale Is the Next Shale
Despite its doubters and haters, the shale revolution in oil and gas production is here to stay. In the second
half of this decade, moreover, it is likely to spread globally more quickly than most think. And all of that is, on
balance, a good thing for the world. The recent surge of U.S. oil and natural gas production has been
nothing short of astonishing. For the past three years, the United States has been the world’s fastestgrowing hydrocarbon producer, and the trend is not likely to stop anytime soon. U.S. natural gas
production has risen by 25 percent since 2010, and the only reason it has temporarily stalled is that investments
are required to facilitate further growth. Having already outstripped Russia as the world’s largest gas producer, by
the end of the decade, the United States will become one of the world’s largest gas exporters ,
fundamentally changing pricing and trade patterns in global energy markets. U.S. oil production, meanwhile, has
grown by 60 percent since 2008, climbing by three million barrels a day to more than eight million barrels a day.
Within a couple of years, it will exceed its old record level of almost ten million barrels a day as the United States
overtakes Russia and Saudi Arabia and becomes the world’s largest oil producer. And U.S. production of natural
gas liquids, such as propane and butane, has already grown by one million barrels per day and should
grow by another million soon. What is unfolding in reaction is nothing less than a paradigm shift in thinking
about hydrocarbons. A decade ago, there was a near-global consensus that U.S. (and, for that matter, non-OPEC)
production was in inexorable decline. Today, most serious analysts are confident that it will continue to
grow. The growth is occurring, to boot, at a time when U.S. oil consumption is falling. (Forget peak oil production;
given a combination of efficiency gains, environmental concerns, and substitution by natural gas, what is
foreseeable is peak oil demand.) And to cap things off, the costs of finding and producing oil and gas in
shale and tight rock formations are steadily going down and will drop even more in the years to come.
Shale oil sustainable- price trajectory proves
Limerick and Hanson 08
Patty Limerick and Jason L. Hanson, Patty Limerick is the Faculty Director and Chair of the Board of the Center of
the American West at the University of Colorado-Boulder, where she is also a Professor of History. Limerick has
dedicated her career to bridging the gap between academics and the general public and to demonstrating the
benefits of applying historical perspective to contemporary dilemmas and conflicts. Jason L. Hanson is a member of
the Research Faculty at the Center of the American West at the University of Colorado-Boulder, where his work
focuses on topics related to energy development, mining, and the environment. Some of his recent projects
include High Energy Prices and Low-Income Americans: Reducing the Risk of Unintended Injury and What Every
Westerner Should Know About Energy Efficiency and Conservation, 2008, Center of the American West
The history of efforts to develop an oil shale industry on the Western Slope is not encouraging, but oil shale
advocates point to
several changes since the last bust that make the industry finally viable in the twenty-first century. First
and foremost, global oil production has leveled off and may have reached its peak. In contrast to the
1970s, when oil prices were artificially driven up by the OPEC oil embargo, escalating energy prices today reflect increasing
global demand for a truly limited resource. The anomalous oil price whiplash of 2008 not withstanding,
the relatively stable price trajectory created by this tightening market - and the steady revenue streams an upward
trajectory will create - provide an economic incentive for development and make it easier for companies to invest in new resources and new
technologies without fearing sudden market fluctuations that might kill new development. Oil shale is near the top of the list of promising new
fossil fuel resources to invest in because it is richer in energy than other remaining unconventional resources. The energy companies at work in
Shale Country today believe that ,
even if crude oil prices level out, oil shale's moment may finally be at hand . As
Shell spokesman Tracy Boyd recently put it, "Regardless of where oil prices are, we think the opportunity is great
and the benefit is great. We plan to continue our slow and methodical approach and stay the course."
Although a commercial industry is still a decade or two in the future, the new generation of in situ technology that Shell and its counterparts in
Shale Country are methodically investing in has the potential to make oil shale development economically and environmentally viable. And at a
moment when national security concerns are converging with economic anxieties in a troubling pattern, the prospect - and potential
ramifications - of developing this massive domestic energy resource staggers the mind.34
New soy-based fracking fluid solves in the status quo
Mercer 7/24 [“Environmentally Friendly Savior of Oil Fracking Industry Could Be… Haliburton? New Fluids
Made With Soy, Vegetables”, Brandon Mercer, Director of digital content at CBS San Francisco Bay Area, July, 24,
2014, CBS San Francisco Bay Area, http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/environmentally-friendly-saviorfor-the-oil-fracking-industry-could-be-haliburton-new-fluids-made-with-soy-vegetables-food-grade-frac-frackfracked-shale-cleanstim-chemicals/ //MER]
(CBS SF) — In the environmentally sensitive Bay Area, “fracked” oil may be a dirty word, but new technology
being pioneered by some environmentalists’ arch nemesis, Haliburton, could make fracking literally palatable
by using fluids sourced from the food industry. Haliburton’s “CleanStim” fracking fluid was created using
chemicals that accomplish the same mechanical tasks of any fracking fluid — widening gaps in rock,
lubricating movement, keeping sand particles suspended in fluid, and inhibiting bacteria, but the fluid’s
components are all used in the food industry to make everything from soy paste, to fruit juice, cake icing
to marshmallows. Of course to prevent any thirsty oil drillers from getting silly, in a small footnote on its
CleamStim microsite Haliburton adds, “Even though all the ingredients are acquired from food suppliers, the
CleanStim fluid system should not be considered edible.” The fluid was discussed at last month’s American
Chemical Society’s Green Chemical And Engineering Conference in Bethesda, Maryland. To be successful both
in the business sense, and in making fracking more sustainable, the fluid has to actually be used. Since its
debut in 2010, it’s been the fluid of choice in hundreds of fracking operations in North America,
Australia, and other countries. It’s not in wide use, however. Haliburton’s Stacia Dickson said it has been used in
California, but strict regulations are actually preventing the more environmentally sustainable product from being
used again. She explained that Haliburton is working on a formula that could be disclosed in California without
revealing trade secrets, but that, “For the time being our customers in California are deprived of unique and
proprietary new technology developments, like CleanStim, some of which improve the environmental
performance of fracturing fluid systems.” It is a premium fracking system, and costs similar to other “premium”
fluids. When asked about developing more environmentally friendly products–or at less environmentally impactful
products– Haliborton’s Dickson said sustainability is part of their business plan. In an emailed statement, she wrote
“Our innovative technologies and our operational experience and expertise are enabling us to favorably
impact our environmental footprint and improve our management of the risks and social challenges that
are inherent in our industry. Our principles provide the foundation and the structure on which we are
building our company’s future. It is, therefore, important that we match our principles with action.”
Haliburton’s website offers this list of components in the fluids, their normal use by the food industry, and
whether they’re considered hazardous on Materials Safety Data Sheets. Obviously, some food-grade components
like even vinegar might be considered hazardous in high concentrations.
This boom is sustainable thanks to research of previous failures
Limerick and Hanson 08
Patty Limerick and Jason L. Hanson, Patty Limerick is the Faculty Director and Chair of the Board of the Center of
the American West at the University of Colorado-Boulder, where she is also a Professor of History. Limerick has
dedicated her career to bridging the gap between academics and the general public and to demonstrating the
benefits of applying historical perspective to contemporary dilemmas and conflicts. Jason L. Hanson is a member of
the Research Faculty at the Center of the American West at the University of Colorado-Boulder, where his work
focuses on topics related to energy development, mining, and the environment. Some of his recent projects
include High Energy Prices and Low-Income Americans: Reducing the Risk of Unintended Injury and What Every
Westerner Should Know About Energy Efficiency and Conservation, 2008, Center of the American West
We believe that the
Fossil Fuel Age is winding down. But until the next era arrives, Americans and people
around the world will continue to demand enough energy to maintain and improve their quality of life.
Until renewable sources are ready to shoulder this burden, fossil fuels such as oil, coal, natural gas - and perhaps oil
shale and their other unconventional counterparts - will continue to be important and necessary energy
sources. As the world moves toward a renewable energy future, oil shale may well be the end game of the Fossil Fuel
Age. But it is a very big play. Although the social and local economic challenges are momentous and the environmental questions are
serious and significant, the world class proportions of the oil shale in the Green River Formation and the
national security impetus to secure a domestic energy supply seem certain to continue attracting the
interest of energy operators, especially whenever the price of oil jumps a tier. Twice in the past century,
interest in oil shale has swelled into a full-fledged boom. These earlier rushes grew out of periods of national anxiety about the energy supply,
when the federal
government encouraged the creation of an oil shale industry in hopes of developing a
secure and abundant domestic energy source. Despite intense efforts, neither boom produced commercially viable technology
for extracting oil from the rocks, and the federal government withdrew its support of the nascent industry once public anxiety about energy
had subsided. Instead of establishing a new industry, without viable technology or long-term commitment from the government, both booms
ended in sudden busts that battered the communities of Shale Country. It would be a mistake to presume that the failures of the past
necessarily predict the future for oil shale. Our world today would be very different if people throughout history had walked away from
endeavors after only two (or five or a dozen) unsuccessful attempts. But studying
the tumultuous history of oil shale in the
Green River Formation will help energy companies, government officials, and Shale Country communities
deal more effectively with the next round of potential oil shale development. Examining the causes of the previous booms and the reasons for
their failure provides a variety of applicable lessons for those who see oil shale on our nation's energy horizon. This time around, the industry
seems to be taking a more deliberate and methodical approach to oil shale, refusing to buy into the false polarity that confidence leaves no
room for caution. We value the current commitment of major industry players like Shell, Chevron, and AMSO (which is part-owned by French
supermajor Total) to the research and development of a process that will be "done right." Doing it right in Shale Country will mean developing
operations that address not just the technical challenges of oil shale recovery but that are also mindful of social, economic, and environmental
consequences. However, just as "the Exxon bust" painted operators with a broad brush in the early 1980s, the industry today runs the risk that
its image will be shaped by the least cautious and deliberate operator in Shale Country.
Companies that build a solid
foundation in Shale Country communities will be best positioned to survive the fallout from another
high-profile failure of one of their competitors. For energy companies in Shale Country, building a solid foundation within the
community means inviting public participation and engaging with local concerns. We heard a story once about an energy company executive
who organized a series of public meetings around the Western Slope at which residents could voice their concerns and get information about
development. At one particular meeting, the executive sat with a pad of paper in front of him, nodding his head as one person after another
shared their views, but never once did he take out his pen and make any notes. Public involvement in the process must mean more than
feigning interest. Companies should work to create a mutually beneficial relationship with the communities they affect (and depend upon for
workers, schools for their children, social services, etc.) to identify community hopes and advance them. This type of long-term investment
promises real benefits and is a necessary component of success, not just a philanthropic option, in Shale Country. While all nonrenewable
resources, even those as vast as oil shale, will eventually dwindle, sustainability is the key term for energy companies seeking to build
relationships with Shale Country communities. In local economic terms, it signifies business models that will promote planned growth rather
than boom-and-bust chaos. Beyond the purview of the local chamber of commerce, it denotes operational plans that demonstrate a
commitment to preserving the area's unique and fragile environment. Companies should work to ensure (and demonstrate to residents) that,
due to thorough research and development, careful selection of sites, and new extraction technologies, production will extend over a careerlength (or longer) time horizon and preserve a healthy environment that can be enjoyed for generations. This is a great deal to ask of the
energy companies. A century ago, these sorts of socioeconomic and environmental concerns would not have even been on the radar of a
mining company. In fact, a century ago, the terms "socioeconomic" and "environmental" were not even part of miners' vocabularies. But the
history of the West is well-supplied with examples of people acting in haste without pausing to consider the consequences of their actions for
other people or the natural world. And after generations spent reckoning with their legacies of economic boom and bust cycles and
environmental damage, we know now that theirs is an example to learn from rather than emulate. Ranchlands in the Piceance Creek valley. If
the boom does come, Western community leaders, energy developers, policymakers, and residents are
fortunate to have a great selection of historical and contemporary case studies to draw upon as they
chart a course through their own unique moment. In many ways, particularly with regard to social impacts, the earlier oil
shale boom and the area's current oil and gas boom both offer valuable lessons that these stakeholders can apply to the next round of potential
oil shale development. The environmental impact is harder to predict because new technology is being tested at the RD&D lease sites. As they
develop their processes, companies must do everything they can to respect and sustain the health and integrity of Shale Country's ecosystems,
water resources, and air quality. As environmentalists often note, the price of resource development grows exponentially when it does
environmental damage that requires long-term or perpetual management. The responsibility of reckoning with these costs is too often
postponed and pushed onto a succeeding generation. In the worst cases, the harm to the environment can be irreversible, such as the
extinction of a species. In these cases, absolute measures of value - such as the price assigned to a barrel of oil or a gallon of gasoline - cannot
meaningfully account for the external costs of energy development. Americans today are more attuned to environmental issues than ever
before, and natural resource extraction is often the subject of national debates. Previews of the public's environmental concerns about oil shale
development may be found in the debates over drilling on the Roan Plateau, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and in the waters off of our
shores. That these areas have attracted nationwide attention is a reminder that, although residents of the Western Slope will feel the impact
most keenly, the development of oil shale is far from just a local issue. A great number of sincere people throughout the nation (and around the
world) care deeply about such beautiful places and their environmental health as much or more than they care about the price of gas. In an
arena where public perception and sentiment can weigh equally with scientific data in determining the worthiness of a project, energy
companies cannot ignore public opinions about their environmental impacts. No report - not even one professing to cover "what every
Westerner should know" - can anticipate all of the issues that will be raised by oil shale development on the Western Slope of the Rocky
Mountains.
A2: Fracking = Methane Release
Fracking is sustainable and status quo solves methane leaks
Urstadt ’13 [“Here’s the Good News About Fracking”, Bryant Urstadt, editor for Bloomberg Businessweek,
September 17, 2013, Bloomberg Buinessweek, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-17/methaneleakage-the-most-important-news-of-the-day //MER]
It’s hard to do a dance about methane leakage numbers, but anyone worried about global warming should. The
University of Texas on Tuesday morning released the results of a study suggesting that the amount of methane
that escapes during the drilling of a natural gas well is about 1 percent, much less than the government—
and across-the-board opponents of fracking—had previously thought. Methane is the main component of natural
gas. When burned in an engine, it is a relatively clean source of energy. When released unburned, it is
thought to be as powerful a greenhouse gas as any fossil fuel. Keeping it underground while drilling for it is
supremely important. This study suggests that this is possible. The study (PDF) was sponsored by oil companies
and environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund. One may naturally be suspicious of any
study that includes participation by an economically interested group; energy companies provided access to some
500 wells during the study. But this one is peer-reviewed and appears credible. One can be suspicious of
environmental groups, too. The EDF’s spokesman, Eric Pooley, worked at Bloomberg Businessweek for a time. Two
years ago, when he last visited, he was asked if natural gas might not provide a solution, and he responded that
the supply chain leakage of methane negated any beneficial effects of clean-burning gas. So this may
represent a change of perspective from the environmental lobby as well. “It’s not a magic bullet,” Pooley
said when reached this morning. “It doesn’t get us all the way we want to go, but it is good news.” The rest
of the pipeline chain includes pipes and valves and holding tanks that exist throughout the world. Oil
companies, occasionally suspected of not working in the public interest, have every reason to want to stop
the leakage of methane at the wellhead and along the way to any engine that uses it. Gas escaping into the sky,
after all, is money. Today’s news suggests that, although we are still at grave risk of warming the planet, we
are making progress. It would have been hard to say this even five years ago.
SQ Solves – efficiency and renewables solve now
Fuel efficiency and renewable development will solve prices and
dependence now
Conathan '12 (Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at American Progress. His work focuses on driving
progressive solutions to the multitude of problems facing the world’s oceans. Prior to joining American Progress, Mike
spent five years staffing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Oceans,
Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard)
There’s no doubt high gas prices are bad for economic recovery and growth. So if your freshman year
economics professor was right about the whole supply-and-demand thing, when the increased supply of one
particular thing doesn’t lower prices, then we should look to diversify our source of that thing while also reducing
demand for it. This is a large part of President Obama’s answer to high gas prices.
Under the Obama administration the United States has put in place new fuel economy standards that
will require cars sold in this country to average 55 miles per gallon by 2025. That helps answer the demand
side of the equation. The administration is also incentivizing the development of renewable sources of
energy that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Diversifying sources of energy will result in
greater supply and drive energy prices down. Similarly, we are investing in alternative, domestically
produced liquid fuels that may prove capable of supplementing or even replacing traditional gasoline to
reduce prices at the pump specifically.
Solvency
Can’t solve prices/dependence
Millions of acres already allocated for drilling—production won’t have any
significant effect on oil prices.
Metropulos 8—Jim Metropulos- July 15
th 2008-- Legislative Representative and Senior Advocate at Sierra Club California, where he
focuses on water and energy policy.—California Progress Report—California Knows: Offshore Drilling Doesn’t Make “Cents”-http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/california-knows-offshore-drilling-doesn%E2%80%99t-make-%E2%80%9Ccents%E2%80%9D
Later that morning, Senate President pro Tempore Don Perata (D-Oakland) took time during a morning press
conference to say he hoped the California Legislature would bring “bipartisan resistance” to any offshore drilling
proposal. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement reiterating his longtime view that “offshore drilling is
not the answer.” The places being suggested for new drilling have been deemed so special that Congress and
consecutive presidents have protected them under an “Outer Continental Shelf” drilling moratorium since
1981. California’s leaders and Sierra Club California know we can save more oil through energy efficiency
than through drilling our precious coast. The Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) own data show
that getting the first oil from currently protected areas would take at least a decade. Sadly, the amount
of oil predicted at peak production in 20 years would still be too small to have any significant effect on
oil prices. In fact, Sierra Club California’s allies at the Natural Resources Defense Council have estimated oil
prices would drop just 3 to 4 cents, if all of the offshore drilling that’s proposed takes place. And that’s at
today’s gas prices! Oil companies already hold some 5,500 offshore leases they aren’t even using. This
March, companies spent a record $3.7 billion securing, according to the Minerals Management Service, a U.S.
agency that tracks and manages mineral rights. The number of drilling permits on federal lands has doubled in the
last five years while the price of gas almost tripled. As another California leader, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said
yesterday morning, “It's time to tell the oil industry: ‘You already have millions of acres to drill. Use it or
lose it.’” Her Senate colleague, California Sen. Barbara Boxer, already has around 10,000 Americans’
signatures on her petition against lifting the moratorium.
Can’t access impact before 2030, and no effect on international markets—
won’t lower oil prices.
EIA 9—US Energy Information Administration—February 22
nd
, 2007—Independent Statistics and Analysis EIA Website-- Impacts of
Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelfhttp://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
Assumptions about exploration, development, and production of economical fields (drilling schedules, costs,
platform selection, reserves-to-production ratios, etc.) in the OCS access case are based on data for fields in the
western Gulf of Mexico that are of similar water depth and size. Exploration and development on the OCS in the
Pacific, the Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf are assumed to proceed at rates similar to those seen in the early
development of the Gulf region. In addition, it is assumed that local infrastructure issues and other potential nonFederal impediments will be resolved after Federal access restrictions have been lifted. With these assumptions,
technically recoverable undiscovered resources in the lower 48 OCS increase to 59 billion barrels of oil and 288
trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as compared with the reference case levels of 41 billion barrels and 210 trillion
cubic feet. The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern
Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or
prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to
start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is
projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million
barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4
million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case
(Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on
average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant. Similarly, lower 48 natural gas production is not
projected to increase substantially by 2030 as a result of increased access to the OCS. Cumulatively, lower
48 natural gas production from 2012 through 2030 is projected to be 1.8 percent higher in the OCS access case
than in the reference case. Production levels in the OCS access case are projected at 19.0 trillion cubic feet in 2030,
a 3-percent increase over the reference case projection of 18.4 trillion cubic feet. However, natural gas production
from the lower 48 offshore in 2030 is projected to be 18 percent (590 billion cubic feet) higher in the OCS access
case (Figure 21). In 2030, the OCS access case projects a decrease of $0.13 in the average wellhead price of natural
gas (2005 dollars per thousand cubic feet), a decrease of 250 billion cubic feet in imports of liquefied natural gas,
and an increase of 360 billion cubic feet in natural gas consumption relative to the reference case projections. In
addition, despite the increase in production from previously restricted areas after 2012, total natural gas
production from the lower 48 OCS is projected generally to decline after 2020. Although a significant volume of
undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case,
conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money . In addition, the
average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of
Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically
attractive to develop at the reference case prices.
Zero solvency – 10 Reasons
CAP 8—September 15
th, 2008--- Center for American Progress—News website-- Ten Reasons Not to Expand Offshore Drilling-http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-to-expand-offshore-drilling/
The nearly 30-year moratorium on oil drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf will expire on September 30th, and
President Bush opposes its extension. Nonetheless, offshore oil drilling in areas that have been off-limits since
1982 is not the way to solve our energy crisis. There are many reasons that offshore drilling in sensitive coastal
areas is a bad idea. These 10 are only the beginning: 1. We can’t drill our way out of the energy crisis.
According to a report by the House Committee on Natural Resources Majority Staff: “Between 1999 and 2007, the
number of drilling permits issued for development of public lands increased by more than 361 percent, yet
gasoline prices have also risen dramatically, contradicting the argument that more drilling means lower gasoline
prices. There is simply no correlation between the two.” 2. We don’t have enough oil to meet our demand.
The U.S. oil supply-demand balance is insurmountable . We have less than 2 percent of the world’s
known reserves, yet use 25 percent of its oil. Even if we drilled off of every beach, and inside every national
park, refuge, and forest, we could not produce enough oil to offset our growing demand. 3. Oil companies have
not utilized the leases they have now. Why open up new areas to drilling when oil companies hold over
4,000 undeveloped leases in the western Gulf of Mexico? What’s more, the government already leases 44
million acres offshore, of which only 10.5 million—or one quarter—are producing oil or gas. 4. Offshore drilling
would have an “ insignificant” effect on long-term prices. Offshore drilling in sensitive areas would
increase domestic oil production by 3 percent by 2030 compared to a reference case, according to the
Energy Information Administration. But “because oil prices are determined on the international market…any
impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.” 5. Drilling could lock us in to a future of
expensive gasoline. By committing to costly recovery, oil companies are betting that oil prices (and gas
prices) will stay high enough to justify their investments. Opening the Outer Continental Shelf could never
bring us back to $2-a-gallon gas, but would ensure that companies that develop the newly available oil have an
interest in keeping gas prices high enough to justify their investments. 6. Production would be expensive,
would not start for a long time, and would have no short-term effect on oil prices. The average oil field
size in the OCS is smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, which is already being developed. As a
result, much of the oil in the OCS would be expensive to extract, and is only becoming attractive now as
a result of high oil prices. According the Energy Information Administration, it would take at least five years for
oil production to begin. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price
until nearly 20 years after leasing begins. 7. There isn’t enough drilling equipment. Due to the high price
of oil, existing drilling ships are “booked solid for the next five years,” and demand for deepwater rigs
has driven up the price of such ships. Oil companies just don’t have the resources to explore oil fields in
the OCS. 8. We can’t refine the oil we would extract. In a June speech, President George W. Bush noted that,
“Refineries are the critical link between crude oil and the gasoline and diesel fuel that drivers put in their tanks.”
Yet refineries are already so stretched that last year, the United States had to import almost 150 million
barrels of gasoline. The Wall Street Journal reported oil companies are not building new refineries because it
would be bad for their bottom line: “Building a new refinery from scratch, Exxon believes, would be bad for longterm business.” 9. Drilling more oil now is not the path to a future based on alternative energy. President
Bush said in his speech that “in the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil,” but “in
the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies .”
Unfortunately, President Bush opposed efforts to shift tax incentives from big oil companies to efficiency and clean
energy technologies, such as plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. If alternatives are the future, why propose an oilbased solution to the energy crisis that will not show any results for years? 10. Debating offshore drilling in
sensitive areas distracts from real solutions. Instead of focusing on offshore drilling in sensitive areas, we
should be thinking about both short- and long-term solutions to the energy crisis. To reduce oil prices, we
can burst the speculative bubble by selling a half million barrels of oil per day from the full Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. To help families, we should close oil company tax loopholes and recover lost royalties on oil and gas from
federal waters, and return these funds to low- and middle-income households in a fuel price “relief bate” program.
Speculators have increased oil prices by up to $30 per barrel, so the administration should make trades more
transparent and increase the “margin” for speculators. In the long run, we must move beyond oil by investing
in clean, sustainable biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, require and promote super fuel-efficient cars,
and shift tax incentives away from fossil fuels and toward clean alternative energy and efficiency. The
real solution to the energy crisis—and to the climate crisis—is to innovate, become more efficient, and
move forward. That’s why offshore drilling in sensitive areas is a bad idea. For a long-term plan, it is remarkably
short-sighted.
More oil won’t make a difference US at all-time high, and even if it did oil
prices won’t lower until 2030
NRDC 11
Natural Resources Defense Council, federal agency, 5/17/11, “Domestic Oil Drilling”,
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/oildrilling/.
More domestic oil drilling will have no effect on the current spike in gasoline prices. U.S. oil production
is currently at a ten-year high, while gas prices continue to skyrocket. Last year alone, oil production
increased more in the U.S. than in any other country in the world. Production in the Outer Continental
Shelf grew by more than a third in the past two years, and production in the Gulf of Mexico brought in
1.6 million barrels of oil per day last year -- an all-time record. More Drilling is Dangerous and Won't Make a Difference
Projections from the Energy Information Administration indicate that an expansion of offshore drilling
wouldn't lower gas prices until 2030, and then by only a few cents per gallon . With only two percent of the
world's reserves, the U.S. contribution to the global market could never be high enough to significantly alter
world oil prices. Nonetheless, the House is voting to increase offshore oil drilling and to weaken oversight of drilling operations, using
higher gas prices as the pretext. These votes are occurring even though Congress has done literally nothing to strengthen the laws governing
offshore drilling since last year's Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. We
don't need lawmakers to promote
reckless drilling that will fail to lower gas prices and endanger our coasts. Instead of weakening
environmental regulations, Congress should be fighting for taxpayers. Oil companies receive billions of dollars in
taxpayer subsidies even as they are reaping record profits. ExxonMobil alone made nearly $11 billion just in the first quarter of 2011. These
companies don't need help from taxpayers, and taxpayers shouldn't
be subsidizing dirty fuels.
Drilling doesn't lead to lower prices
Conathan '12 (Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at American Progress. His work focuses on driving
progressive solutions to the multitude of problems facing the world’s oceans. Prior to joining American Progress, Mike
spent five years staffing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Oceans,
Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard)
One Republican presidential contender, former Speaker of the House
Newt Gingrich, is on the campaign trail promising that if elected he’ll get the price of gasoline back to a
nationwide average of $2.50 per gallon. Yet even in a 29-minute infomercial-style speech, he couldn’t find
the time to address any of the reasons why more drilling will not lead to lower prices.
Gingrich simply trumpets the misguided talking points of building the Keystone XL pipeline, tapping shale oil in the
upper Midwest, and of course opening more areas to offshore drilling. He then leaves it to his audience to
make the assumption that supply-side economics will work its voodoo magic, and presto-change-o, we’ll
all be able to drive Hummers and have enough cash left over to put a latte in every cupholder. By
contrast, President Barack Obama delivered an address on energy last Thursday in which he made the less
politically expedient but actually realistic proclamation that “there is no silver bullet” that will solve our
energy problem. He further suggested anyone who pitches the idea that drilling alone will lower gas
prices “doesn’t know what they’re talking about or just isn’t telling you the truth.”
If increasing oil drilling lowered gas prices, we’d know it already. When President Obama took office in 2009,
there were fewer than 400 drilling rigs operating in the United States, a number that dwindled to fewer
than 200 by April 2009. Since then, even as his administration conducted a wholesale review of drilling
regulations in the aftermath of the worst offshore oil spill in the nation’s history—the BP Deepwater Horizon oil
catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico—the number of oil rigs operating in the United States has quadrupled.
But that massive influx of supply has done nothing to reduce the price we pay to top up our tanks. As
fundamental as the law of supply and demand might be to macroeconomic theory, the on-the-ground reality is
that more drilling will not lower gas prices. Here’s why:
It hasn’t worked yet. There are currently more oil rigs operating on U.S. lands and waters than in the
rest of the world combined, production is at an eight-year high, and the most recent “Short-Term Energy
Outlook” from the Energy Information Administration projects production to continue growing at least through
2013 based on current activity. By the end of President Obama’s recently issued five-year drilling plan, fully 75
percent of our undiscovered, technically recoverable offshore reserves will be open to drilling. All that additional
activity hasn’t stemmed the recent gas price spike.
If oil companies wanted to increase production, they could. In March 2011 the Department of the
Interior released a report revealing two-thirds of oil-and-gas companies’ offshore leases and more than
half of their onshore leases are not being produced.
Oil Prices will only reduce by two cents-and not until 2030
Conathan '12 (Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at American Progress. His work focuses on driving
progressive solutions to the multitude of problems facing the world’s oceans. Prior to joining American Progress, Mike
spent five years staffing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Oceans,
Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard)
Pumping oil takes time. Opening new offshore areas will take seven years to produce any new oil, and
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will take 10 years to produce a single drop of oil. Even if more production
would lower prices, it wouldn’t happen tomorrow. And the Energy Information Administration finds that
even if we wave the green flag for our entire exclusive economic zone, it will do nothing more than
reduce the cost of gasoline by two cents, and not until 2030.
More Drilling is dangerous and won't make a difference
NRDC '11 (National Resource Defense Council http://www.nrdc.org/energy/oildrilling/)
Projections from the Energy Information Administration indicate that an expansion of offshore drilling
wouldn't lower gas prices until 2030, and then by only a few cents per gallon. With only two percent of
the world's reserves, the U.S. contribution to the global market could never be high enough to
significantly alter world oil prices. Nonetheless, the House is voting to increase offshore oil drilling and
to weaken oversight of drilling operations, using higher gas prices as the pretext. These votes are
occurring even though Congress has done literally nothing to strengthen the laws governing offshore
drilling since last year's Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. We don't need lawmakers
to promote reckless drilling that will fail to lower gas prices and endanger our coasts. Instead of
weakening environmental regulations, Congress should be fighting for taxpayers. Oil companies receive
billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies even as they are reaping record profits. ExxonMobil alone made
nearly $11 billion just in the first quarter of 2011. These companies don't need help from taxpayers, and
taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing dirty fuels.
Energy efficiency, not more oil, solves
NRDC 11
Natural Resources Defense Council, federal agency, 5/17/11, “Domestic Oil Drilling”,
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/oildrilling/.
The
most effective way to reduce consumer costs for gasoline and to stop sending oil dollars overseas is
to improve energy efficiency. We can invest in more efficient cars and trucks, cleaner fuels, and
transportation choices such as commuter rail. By 2030, efficiency and other oil savings measures can save a
total of eight times more oil than opening new areas to drilling off America's shores or in sensitive protected
areas. In 2007, Congress voted to improve fuel economy, and President Obama has started moving America down this
road: he established standards requiring vehicles to reach an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Technologies to meet this goal are well
known, and strong standards will ensure they come to market. Building cars that go farther using less gasoline is the best way to protect
Americans from price spikes.
It will also create jobs, slash our oil imports, and reduce dangerous air pollution .
This is the kind of solution we need right now. We don’t need lawmakers to promote reckless drilling that will
fail to lower gas prices and endanger our coasts. It's time to move beyond our dependence on oil and seek
alternatives such as clean energy and fuel efficiency. I n doing so, we must fight back against Big Oil and the lawmakers
so closely tied to their pockets.
Economy
Defense
No impact to price shocks—most recent ev proves innovation solves
Ro 6/30 Sam Ro JUN. 30, 2014, 9:55 PM Sam is editor of Money Game. He has been published on Forbes, DealBreaker, and The Fiscal
Times. He was the senior equity analyst for the Forbes Special Situation Survey and Forbes Growth Investor equity newsletters. Sam has also
held positions at James F. Reda & Associates, Brown Brothers Harriman, and Paul Weiss. He holds a BA in Religion from Boston University, and
he is a CFA CharterholdMore: Oil Iraq Oil Price Shocks Aren’t as Harmful as They Used to Be Business Insider
http://www.businessinsider.com/author/sam-ro
Oil is a critical source of energy. In the past, a major oil price shock meant devastation for economic growth. "Our obsession
with oil prices comes with good reason," writes Morgan Stanley economist Ellen Zentner. "Abrupt and sharp increases in oil
prices have played a key role in precipitating recessions in 1973-75, 1980-81, 1990-91, 2001 and 2008-09." Recent turmoil
in Iraq has sent oil prices much higher. But economists aren't ready to freak out just yet. "Over time,
however, those shocks to the relative price of oil have spurred innovations that have led to a more
efficient use of energy inputs," continued Zentner. "Alongside growing use of other energy inputs, those
innovations have reduced the world economy’s dependence on oil."
Net GDP Effect is neutral
POD 9—Peak Oil Debunked Debunking peak oil hype with facts and figures, and exposing the agendas behind peak oil.THURSDAY, JULY
30, 2009 http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2009/07/413-oil-shocks-do-not-cause-global.html
As noted in the previous article, peak oil doomers constantly say that oil shocks (or high oil prices) inevitably cause
economic recession. They produce graphs showing the coincidence of recessions with oil price spikes, and suggest
that the historical record is unequivocal. For some countries, like the US, their point is very true. However,
consider the flipside: when the US is getting bled to death and recessing due to high oil prices, countries
like Saudi Arabia and Russia are swimming in cash and growing like never before. The money that is
sucked out of the US economy is diverted to and spent by oil exporting economies, and the result is a
net wash in terms of global GDP . The global GDP doesn't care who spends the money, or where it is
spent, or what it is spent on. In fact, there is no simple logical reason why an oil shock should cause
global growth to halt or reverse -- a fact which has been noted by economists.
Economy high now.
Steinhauser 8/1—Paul Steinhauser August 1st, 2014 CNN Political News Editor CNN Poll: Percentage who say economy's 'good'
on the rise CNN http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/01/cnn-poll-percentage-who-say-economys-good-on-the-rise/
Washington (CNN) - Most Americans still say that the economy's in poor shape. But the percentage who
describe economic conditions as good continue to slowly but steadily increase, and now stands at its
highest level since before the last recession, according to a new national survey. A CNN/ORC International poll
indicates that 58% of those surveyed rates the nation's economic conditions as poor, with 41% saying they are
good. The percentage who say things are good is up from 29% last October to 32% in December, 36% in February,
38% in May and 41% now. "The 41% is the largest number of Americans with a positive view of the
economy since Barack Obama became President, and it represents the highest rating for the economy since
the last recession officially began in December of 2007," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland . CNN poll
economic conditions graphic The poll's Friday release preceded the Labor Department's report on July
unemployment. And it hits two days after new data showing that the economy bounced back in the
spring, growing at a 4% annual pace in the second quarter. That's better than what economists had
expected . U.S. economy bounces back sharply Revised numbers from that Commerce Department
report also showed that the economy's winter contraction wasn't as bleak as first reported. When it
comes to perceptions about the economy, the CNN poll indicates a geographical divide. "People in the Northeast,
Midwest and West all appear to see some improvement in the economy. The number of Westerners who say the
economy's in good shape has nearly doubled, and there are 15-to-18 point gains in the Midwest and Northeast.
"But it's a different story in the South, where the number of southerners who give a thumbs-up to the economy
has remained stubbornly stuck at 34%, suggesting either that better times have yet to visit the South or that
southerners have yet to perceive that things are getting better," Holland adds.
Prices
Alt Causes
Alt cause to price increase-Persian Gulf, financial spectators, and worldwide demand
Conathan '12 (Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at American Progress. His work focuses on driving
progressive solutions to the multitude of problems facing the world’s oceans. Prior to joining American Progress, Mike
spent five years staffing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Oceans,
Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard)
If the solution were so simple, then the problem of rising gasoline prices wouldn’t exist—we’re already
drilling like crazy in the United States. And yet prices have continued to spike. As my colleague Daniel J.
Weiss explains, the reasons for the recent price increase are myriad and include political instability in the
Persian Gulf, the influence of financial speculators, and increasing worldwide demand as economies
recover. Yet many conservatives are dusting off their old bumper stickers and touting more drilling as
the sole solution to high prices at the pump.
LWCF
SQ Solves
LWCF funding at high
Land Trust Alliance 14
Land Trust Alliance, “Conservation in the President's FY2014 Budget”, 2014,
http://www.landtrustalliance.org/policy/public-funding/fy2014-budget
On April 10, President Obama released his budget blueprint for Fiscal Year 2014. The budget is both a guide to the President's vision of the
government, and a list of funding requests. The budget is only a proposal to Congress--and the final version will be altered significantly before it
is approved by the House and Senate, which have both passed their own budget resolutions in the last few weeks. The President's budget
contains mixed news on land trust policy priorities. What follows are our initial conclusions -- we will provide more in-depth analysis and
summary tables on Thursday. Enhanced Easement Incentive & the Charitable Deduction. Unlike prior years, the Budget does NOT include a oneyear extension of the "extenders package," which usually includes the the enhanced tax incentive for donations of conservation easements. In
fact, it proposes to eliminate the tax incentive for donations of easements on golf courses and air rights above historic buildings. Consistent
with previous budgets, it proposes a 28% cap on the effective benefit of itemized deductions, including the charitable deduction. On the bright
side, the charitable deduction IS specifically exempted from the limits on itemized deductions in the "Buffet Rule," which imposes a minimum
30% tax on high-income taxpayers. Farm Bill, Funding levels for the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program and Grassland Reserve Program
are complicated by changes in the authorizing language anticipated in the upcoming Farm Bill. The requested $139 million for FRPP appears to
be a substantial cut from the authorized level of $200 million, but we're seeking clarification of how the budget proposal will interact with those
changes -- stay tuned. Conservation Funding
For the first time, the President's budget seeks mandatory and full
funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Beginning in FY 2015, LWCF would be fully funded
at $900 million per year. In FY 2014, the budget requests $600 million, with $200 million in
mandatory spending for LWCF. This is nearly double the current funding level of $306 million, but it
should be noted that the proposed "offsets" for the mandatory funding have previously proven
unpalatable to Congress.
Coastal Tourism DA
Outweighs benefits
Oil drilling along Atlantic Coast not worth the cost—hurts the tourism
industry.
Sturgill 5/1—Randy Sturgill—May 1 , 2014—Political activist Oceana’s grassroots Campaign, a high energy field operations
st
component of our campaign to stop expanded offshore oil and gas drilling and to promote offshore wind energy.-- Letters | Outer
continental shelf deserves exploration; Drilling off our coast comes at too high a price; Are GOP women willing to make less than men?—
Myrtle Beach Online-- http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2014/05/01/4200859/letters-outer-continental-shelf.html Read more here:
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2014/05/01/4200859/letters-outer-continental-shelf.html#storylink=cpy
Some politicians’ want us believe that drilling off the coast of South Carolina will set this country on a path to
energy independence. But they are ignoring a few crucial facts. First, the entire area offshore of the Atlantic
Coast, from Maine to Florida, contains less than 3 percent of the oil and gas reserves in the United States,
and South Carolina’s portion of that 3 percent is small. Second, oil is bought and sold on a global market, so oil
drilled off the coast of South Carolina does not stay in the state. Even if the United States produced as much
oil as it consumed every year, we would still import and export oil to and from foreign countries. This is
how global commodities work. Drilling off our coasts also threatens those jobs that depend on healthy
oceans. The majority of jobs in Horry County, where Myrtle Beach is located, are related to the tourism
industry. In Charleston, tourism contributes over $3.5 billion to the local economy.
OCS unnecessary and causes laundry list of environmental problems –
economic costs outweigh benefits
Zipf 13
Cindy Zipf is the executive director of Clean Ocean Action Inc., based in Sandy Hook, N.J., and a guest writer for the
Wall Street Journal, 4/14/13, “Should the U.S. Expand Offshore Oil Drilling?”,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324020504578398610851042612
Expanded offshore drilling for oil in the U.S. would be an unnecessary, harmful step in the wrong direction.
Recent trends in U.S. energy consumption and production suggest we don't need to find more oil
offshore. Our investment dollars and energies are better spent on renewable energy, conservation and
efficiencies such as improved mass transit, smart grids and clean-emission vehicles—an approach that
creates jobs, doesn't damage the environment and addresses fossil-fuel-driven climate change. Along
the Atlantic, Pacific, Alaskan and Gulf coasts, entire state budgets are built on revenues from cleanocean economies. Fishing, boating, beach-going, surfing and tourism businesses rely on clean, healthy ecosystems. These businesses
bring billions of dollars to coastal economies and provide jobs for millions of people. In light of recent superstorms and increasingly hostile
ocean conditions, driven by climate change, shore-based economies are under enough stress without the added burdens imposed by offshore
drilling. No Need According
to the White House, U.S. demand for oil is at a 15-year low, and measures are in
place to reduce it further by, for example, boosting fuel-economy standards for vehicles. The percentage of crude-oil
consumption supplied by imports has declined , and if we stop exporting petroleum products like gasoline and heating oil—
in 2011 the U.S. became a net exporter of petroleum products, sending 2.9 million barrels a day
abroad—we further reduce our need for crude imports. These are all signs that we can and will break our dependence on
oil, and that we're heading in that direction. Clearly, we don't need to expand offshore drilling to meet our needs. In addition,
more drilling would mean more damage to the environment. Seismic surveys—the piercing sound waves used to pinpoint
oil deposits—travel thousands of miles, interfering with marine mammal reproduction, migration and communication, and causing localized
reductions in fishery catches. Also, offshore oil
facilities (pipelines, rigs, wellheads) generate significant air and water pollution.
Perhaps most significant, there is the ever-present risk of oil spills. Despite claims of safety improvements over the years, any rig,
tanker or pipeline can become a disaster—regardless of the precautions taken. After thousands of rig and pipeline spills, fires and leaks onshore
and off, as well as recent problems with operations in the Arctic, everyone can reasonably expect that expanded
ocean drilling will
involve significant environmental harm and the heavy economic toll that comes with it. Not Worth It What
would be our reward for knowingly taking these risks? Forget about lower gasoline prices. The U.S. Energy Information
Administration estimates that if oil drilling was expanded in all the ocean areas of the lower 48 states,
we would only see a three-cent reduction in the price of a gallon of gasoline by 2030. The promise of oil
jobs boosting local economies is a hollow one. History is replete with examples of energy companies
coming into areas with supposedly struggling economies, claiming to be the solution. Once the extraction
infrastructure is built or energy reservoirs are depleted, jobs vanish. This is beginning to play out in the Bakken oil fields in the Dakotas. Areas
with already vibrant economies will also lose when the pollution footprint of expanded oil and gas drilling crowds out clean ocean uses.
Investments in renewable energy, efficiency and conservation will produce lasting employment and a higher standard of living throughout the
economy without incurring the same risks. Offshore
drilling yields too little benefit at too great a cost to our coastal
communities, their economies and the environment. Instead, we should be working to build a smarter
energy future.
Tourism Key Econ
Tourism is key to the government, economy, and environment.
Mukherjee 13
Mr. Abir Lal Mukherjee, an associate Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel; The Ecology Centre Kiel, 3/11/13, “Impact
of tourism in coastal areas: Need of sustainable tourism strategy”,
http://www.coastalwiki.org/wiki/Impact_of_tourism_in_coastal_areas:_Need_of_sustainable_tourism_strategy.
Internally cites the World Tourism Organisation (WTO), the only international organization that deals with trade
between nations.
The main
positive economic impacts of sustainable (coastal) tourism are: contributions to government
revenues, foreign exchange earnings, generation of employment and business opportunities . Further
information on economic contributions of tourism can be found on the website of the World Travel and Tourism Council. Contribution to
government revenues. Government revenues from the tourism sector can be categorised as direct and indirect contributions. Direct
contributions are generated by income taxes from tourism and employment due to tourism, tourism businesses and by direct charges on
tourists such as ecotax . Indirect contributions derive from taxes and duties on goods and services supplied to tourists, for example, taxes on
tickets (or entry passes to any protected areas), souvenirs, alcohol, restaurants, hotels, service of tour operators. Foreign exchange earnings.
Tourism expenditures, the
export and import of related goods and services generate income to the host
economy. Tourism is a main source of foreign exchange earnings for at least 38 % of all countries (World
Tourism Organisation). Employment generation. The rapid expansion of international tourism has led to significant
employment creation. Tourism can generate jobs directly through hotels, restaurants, taxis, souvenir
sales and indirectly through the supply of goods and services needed by tourism-related businesses; for
e.g. conducted tour operators. Tourism represents around 7 % of the world’s employees (World Tourism Organisation).
Stimulation of infrastructure investment Tourism can influence the local government to improve the infrastructure by creating better water and
sewage systems, roads, electricity, telephone and public transport networks. All this can improve the standard of living for residents as well as
facilitate tourism. Contribution
to local economies. Tourism can be a significant or even an essential part of the local economy. As
revenues are often used to measure the
economic value of protected areas. Part of the tourism income comes from informal employment, such as street vendors and
environment is a basic component of the tourism industry’s assets, tourism
informal guides. The positive side of informal or unreported employment is that the money is returned to the local economy and has a great
multiplier effect as it is spent over and over again. The World Travel and Tourism Council estimates that tourism generates an indirect
contribution equal to 100 % of direct tourism expenditures. Direct financial contributions to nature protection. Tourism can
contribute
directly to the conservation of sensitive areas and habitats. Revenue from park-entrance fees and similar
sources can be allocated specifically to pay for the protection and management of environmentally
sensitive areas. Some governments collect money in more far-reaching and indirect ways that are not linked to specific parks or
conservation areas. User fees, income taxes, taxes on sales or rental of recreation equipment and license fees for activities such as hunting and
fishing can provide governments with the funds needed to manage natural resources. Competitive advantage. More and more tour operators
take an active approach towards sustainability. Not only because consumers expect them to do so but also because they are aware that intact
destinations are essential for the long term survival of the tourism industry. More and more tour operators prefer to work with suppliers who
act in a sustainable manner, e.g. saving water and energy, respecting the local culture and supporting the well being of local communities. In
2000 the international Tour Operators initiative for Sustainable Tourism was founded with the support of UNEP.
Environment DAs
Arctic Drilling Link
Expanding arctic OCS drilling creates key biodiversity – spills uniquely
likely, cleanup impossible, independently causes warming and crushes US
environmental leadership
Beinecke ’13 [“Six Reasons Why Offshore Drilling in the Arctic Cannot Be Done Safely”, Frances Beinecke,
President of the Natural Resources Defense Council, June 10, 2013, Switchboard: Natural Resource Defense
Council Staff Blog, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/fbeinecke/six_reasons_why_offshore_drill.html //MER]
The Coast Guard recently wrapped up a hearing about the Shell drill rig that ran aground in December. The rig and
its tow vessel were part of Shell’s reckless attempt to drill for oil in the wild and remote Arctic Ocean. Witnesses
described the uncertified equipment that broke off the tow, the anchor dropped at the wrong time that could have
caused a deadly crash, and the “jelly-like stuff” that killed all four engines because crew members forgot to treat
the fuel lines. But when investigators asked why the rig was traveling through notoriously rough waters in the
stormiest time of year, the answer had nothing to do with technical or human error: the company wanted to avoid
paying taxes in Alaska. Shell’s entire Arctic Ocean program has been riddled with failure and carelessness. The
details from last week’s hearing simply confirmed it. But testimony about forty-foot swells, treacherous waters,
and perilous helicopter rescues also revealed another important truth: no company is a match for this forbidding
place. Even the best-prepared, best-equipped, and most technologically advanced oil company has no
business drilling for oil in the Arctic. It is simply not possible to do it safely here. The Arctic is a crown
jewel in America’s national heritage, home to wondrous wildlife and breathtaking landscapes. But it is also a
rugged and forbidding environment. The ocean is covered in ice much of the year, shrouded in fog and
darkness, and located 1,000 miles away from the nearest Coast Guard base. No matter how well
prepared an oil company claims to be, no one can master these punishing conditions. And if they try and
fail, the result would be disastrous. There is no proven technology or emergency response plan that can
contain an oil spill in the Arctic. For these reasons, the Obama Administration must call a halt to offshore drilling
in the Arctic Ocean. 1. The oil industry has a long history of spills on the North Slope. There has been a spill of
oil or associated chemicals on the average of once a day since oil and gas development began on the North Slope.
Many of the accidents involved pipelines, and development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas would require a
network of pipelines stretching up to 75 miles to shore. To make matters worse, ocean currents and winds
can move oil and chemicals hundreds of miles in unpredictable ways. 2. Studies confirm the absence of a
reliable cleanup method for the Arctic. A study commissioned by Canada’s National Energy Board looked at 20
years of Beaufort Sea data and concluded that bad weather and sea ice would make it impossible to use the
three most widely used oil spill containment methods—burning spilled oil in-situ, using booms and skimmers,
and aerial application of dispersants—up to 84 percent of the time during the June-to-November drilling season.
Spills
that occurred late in the season would remain until the following year because the oil would get
trapped under the ice. Cold water breaks down oil much more slowly than warm water does, which means a spill
could linger for years. 3. Almost no infrastructure exists to support emergency response. There is no backup
in the American Arctic when systems fail. The nearest cache of clean-up equipment is 2,000 miles away in
Seattle. There are few shipping ports or landing strips near the lease sites, and bringing rescue crews and equipment to
the Arctic would be a staggering challenge. Recall that the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster occurred near the
epicenter of the American oil industry—with access to thousands of commercial, industrial, and Coast Guard
vessels and robust airline support—and it still took five months to seal the well. 4. The Arctic Coast is teeming
with extraordinary wildlife. The Chukchi Sea features a vast, shallow floor, and its seasonal ice cover helps polar
bears, walrus, and seals to hunt. To the east, the Beaufort’s coastline is the number-one land denning site in
America’s Arctic for female polar bears. Endangered bowhead whales migrate through the area in the spring
and, more significantly, in the fall when drilling would occur. Introducing massive industrial activity into
this region would put many of these animals in peril. The oil exploration process alone requires powerful air guns that could
injure or kill whales that rely on sound to find food and mate. An oil spill in the midst of these creatures would be
devastating. 5. Damage to wildlife will undermine indigenous cultures. The Inupiat and other Alaska
Native communities depend upon clean, vibrant oceans. Bowhead whales, for instance, provide both the
primary subsistence food and cultural identity for the Inupiat who live along the Beaufort Sea. Many villagers worry that
offshore drilling will endanger these traditions with its sonar blasts, increased ship traffic, and threat of
spills. 6. Drilling for Oil in the Arctic Will Invite More Climate Disruption Rising temperatures are heating the
Arctic twice as fast as the rest of the planet. This shift has grave consequences for all of us. The Arctic is the air
conditioner for the world—as it warms, it modifies the jet stream and influences weather patterns over North
America, Europe, and Russia and intensify extreme weather events in our communities. If we are going to prevent
more climate destruction, America must reduce the amount of carbon we pump into the air. Investing in clean
energy will move us forward, but drilling for Arctic oil will take us in the wrong direction. And all the carbon released when
Arctic oil was burned would make this unique and beautiful region even more compromised by climate
change. This must be the place we decide as a nation: no drilling here. It’s not safe for the Arctic, and it’s
not smart for the climate. Even oil companies are starting to recognize that drilling here makes no sense.
ConocoPhilips, Norway’s Statoil, and Total SA have all postponed or cancelled their plans to drill in America’s
Arctic. Now it’s time for the Obama Administration to stop going literally to the ends of the Earth for dirty
fossil fuels that undercut progress controlling climate change, and cost us global leadership on the most important environmental issue of
our age. It’s time for President Obama to end offshore drilling in the Arctic Ocean. Click here to send this message to
the administration now.
OCS drilling is a threat to coastal and marine areas-will cause extinction –
arctic risks are unique
Steiner '14 (Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation biologist.)
Some lawmakers are already expressing opposition to the drilling plan. In a July 2, 2014 letter to the President,
Sens. Bob Menendez, Cory Booker, and Congressman Frank Pallone (Ds-NJ) wrote that they "strongly oppose any
efforts to expand offshore oil and gas drilling, particularly any such efforts that would threaten New
Jersey's vibrant coastal communities... We owe it to future generations to ensure that our pristine
natural resources are preserved and protected from the polluting fossil fuel industry." The same is true
for all of our nation's waters. In the Arctic, large-scale offshore drilling would forever change the
seascape and ecosystem. The Arctic Ocean is a spectacular, unique, and fragile marine ecosystem, home
to polar bears, walrus, whales, ice-seals, and ancient human cultures.
Already suffering extreme effects of climate change, drilling in the Arctic Ocean would make matters
worse by adding significant industrial disturbance, including platforms, pipelines, tankers, ports, ship
and air traffic, underwater noise, suspended sediment, and of course oil spills with no hope of cleanup.
The area's remoteness, severe weather and icy seas make drilling here a high-risk, unacceptable gamble.
Just ask Shell Oil. In perhaps the most intensely scrutinized offshore drilling project in history, Shell's calamitous
2012 Arctic drilling effort off Alaska displayed arrogance, incompetence, and a reckless disregard for the risks
involved. One of Shell's Arctic drilling rigs, the Kulluk, being towed across the stormy Gulf of Alaska in late
December (to avoid paying first-of-the-year taxes), broke its tow and grounded off of Kodiak Island. Its other drill
ship, the Noble Discoverer, had to emergency-disconnect from drilling to avoid the approach of a large ice floe,
had a stack fire, broke down and had to be towed into port, was detained by the Coast Guard, and was issued
several notices of violation and serious deficiencies.
Shell's oil spill containment dome "crushed like a beer can" when it was first tested. Both of Shell's Arctic drill rigs
were seriously damaged, and the company had to cancel its 2013 and 2014 Arctic drilling plans. Industry observers
opined that Shell may have "bitten off more than it could chew."
If we genuinely care about our coastal and marine areas, we should not expose them to the risk of oil
drilling. Spills will occur; they can't be cleaned up; they can cause long-term, even permanent, damage;
and restoration is impossible. Where we do produce and transport oil, it must be done with the highest possible
safety standards. We need to use oil much more efficiently, and stop wasting it.
But beyond this, the global climate simply cannot afford the carbon that would be produced offshore. Instead, we
need to kick our hydrocarbon habit, and get on with the hard work of building a sustainable energy economy. If
President Obama wants to make good on his campaign pledge to "slow the rise in the oceans," and to
"heal the planet," he needs to abandon this plan for new offshore drilling (at the very least, permanently
withdraw the Arctic), and begin to phase-out existing offshore oil production. A tall order, perhaps, but essential in
order to incentivize the transition to a sustainable energy future. And with such bold U.S. leadership, other nations
would be encouraged to follow.
Sheikh Zaki Yamani, former Saudi Arabian oil minister, once said, "The Stone Age did not end for lack of
stones, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil." Our ancestors invented a smarter
way to live. Now it's our turn.
Specifically, oil drilling hurts the Arctic—no tech to clean up oil spills;
unsafe for wildlife.
Noppen 13-- Trip Van Noppen—December 5
th, 2014-- Earthjustice as its president, leading the organization's staff, board, and
supporters to advance its mission of using the courts to protect our environment and people's health. Trip has degrees from Yale and the
University of North Carolina, and he clerked for a federal district judge. He then practiced law in Raleigh, NC, in a litigation practice
emphasizing civil rights, employment, environmental, and toxic tort cases. In 1998, he joined the Southern Environmental Law Center and
became director of its Carolinas Office—The Huffington Post-- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trip-van-noppen/expanding-oil-drillingin_b_4373519.html
President Obama has stated that "we can't have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in
the past. We need an energy strategy for the future..." Drilling in high-risk places like the freezing waters of
the Arctic Ocean is a backwards-looking strategy when we need to look forward to meet energy needs
and limit the effects of climate change. Fighting climate change means that we must slow our
consumption of fossil fuels and prevent drilling in places like the Arctic Ocean. The Arctic Ocean is
unique and globally important . Scientists call it one of the most productive ocean ecosystems in the
world, providing a sustainable food source for not only the local communities, but for many fish-lovers
here in the U.S. Its vast pristine waters and ice provide nutrients and essential habitat for a multitude of
organisms, ranging from walruses to ice seals to whales to millions of seabirds to the top predator mammal, the
polar bear. It supports iconic wildlife and vibrant indigenous cultures already under tremendous stress
and suffering the effects of climate change. The failures of Shell Oil's drilling efforts last year
demonstrate that industry is not ready to handle Arctic offshore conditions. Basic information is missing
to assess the impacts of drilling in the Arctic Ocean, let alone responsibly manage it. And no technology
currently exists to clean up oil spilled in frozen seas. And at the same time it is considering new lease sales in
the Arctic Ocean, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is reviewing a new proposal from Shell Oil to conduct
exploration drilling in the Chukchi Sea in 2014. Yes -- this is the same multi-national oil company that blew it so
badly last year in the Arctic Ocean, losing control of not one, but two different oil rigs, running one of them into an
island off the Coast of Alaska, incurring $1.1 million for violations of the Clean Air Act, and remains the subject of
multiple investigations relating to its operations. Shell's drilling effort last year demonstrated one thing with vivid
clarity -- even the largest, most profitable oil company in the world cannot mobilize and operate safely in the Arctic
Ocean. Big Oil's track record speaks for itself and has no business drilling in the Arctic Ocean. Drilling for oil in the
Arctic Ocean is the very definition of a risky addiction. It also takes take us in the wrong direction when
it comes to addressing the challenges of climate change. President Obama can make a generational
commitment to reduce our country's dependence on dirty fuels and embrace his role as a global leader in the
effort to combat climate change by leaving the oil in the ground and preventing oil drilling in the pristine waters of
the Arctic Ocean.
Drilling in Arctic specifically causes cultural, economic, and environmental
problems – 6 reasons
Beinecke 13
Frances Beinecke, president of the NRDC with a background in environmental studies, 6/10/13, “Six Reasons Why
Offshore Drilling in the Arctic Cannot Be Done Safely”, Switchboard,
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/fbeinecke/six_reasons_why_offshore_drill.html.
The Coast Guard recently wrapped up a hearing about the Shell drill rig that ran aground in December. The rig and its tow vessel were part of
Shell’s reckless attempt to drill for oil in the wild and remote Arctic Ocean. Witnesses described the uncertified equipment that broke off the
tow, the
anchor dropped at the wrong time that could have caused a deadly crash, and the “jelly-like
stuff” that killed all four engines because crew members forgot to treat the fuel lines. But when investigators
asked why the rig was traveling through notoriously rough waters in the stormiest time of year, the answer had nothing to do with technical or
human error: the company wanted to avoid paying taxes in Alaska. Shell’s entire Arctic Ocean program has been riddled with failure and
carelessness. The details from last week’s hearing simply confirmed it. But testimony about forty-foot swells, treacherous waters, and perilous
helicopter rescues also revealed another important truth: no company is a match for this forbidding place. Even the best-prepared, bestequipped, and most technologically advanced oil company has no business drilling for oil in the Arctic.
It is simply not possible to do
it safely here. The Arctic is a crown jewel in America’s national heritage, home to wondrous wildlife and breathtaking landscapes. But it is
also a rugged and forbidding environment. The ocean is covered in ice much of the year, shrouded in fog and darkness, and located 1,000 miles
away from the nearest Coast Guard base. No matter how well prepared an oil company claims to be, no one can master these punishing
conditions. And if they try and fail, the result would be disastrous. There is no proven technology or emergency response plan that can contain
an oil spill in the Arctic. For these reasons, the Obama Administration must call a halt to offshore drilling in the Arctic Ocean. 1.
The oil
industry has a long history of spills on the North Slope. There has been a spill of oil or associated
chemicals on the average of once a day since oil and gas development began on the North Slope.
Many of the accidents involved pipelines, and development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas would
require a network of pipelines
stretching up to 75 miles to shore. To make matters worse, ocean currents and winds can move oil
and chemicals hundreds of miles in unpredictable ways. 2.
Studies confirm the absence of a reliable cleanup method for
the Arctic. A study commissioned by Canada’s National Energy Board looked at 20 years of Beaufort Sea data and concluded that bad
weather and sea ice would make it impossible to use the three most widely used oil spill containment methods—burning spilled oil in-situ,
using booms and skimmers, and aerial application of dispersants—up to 84 percent of the time during the June-to-November drilling season.
Spills that occurred late in the season would remain until the following year because the oil would get trapped under the ice. Cold water breaks
down oil much more slowly than warm water does, which means a spill could linger for years. 3. Almost
no infrastructure exists to
support emergency response. There is no backup in the American Arctic when systems fail. The nearest
cache of clean-up equipment is 2,000 miles away in Seattle. There are few shipping ports or landing strips near the lease sites,
and bringing rescue crews and equipment to the Arctic would be a staggering challenge. Recall that the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster
occurred near the epicenter of the American oil industry—with access to thousands of commercial, industrial, and Coast Guard vessels and
robust airline support—and it still took five months to seal the well. 4.
The Arctic Coast is teeming with extraordinary
wildlife. The Chukchi Sea features a vast, shallow floor, and its seasonal ice cover helps polar bears,
walrus, and seals to hunt. To the east, the Beaufort’s coastline is the number-one land denning site in America’s Arctic for female
polar bears. Endangered bowhead whales migrate through the area in the spring and, more significantly, in the fall when drilling
would occur. Introducing massive industrial activity into this region would put many of these animals in peril. The oil exploration process alone
requires powerful air guns that could injure or kill whales that rely on sound to find food and mate.
An oil spill in the midst of these
creatures would be devastating. 5. Damage to wildlife will undermine indigenous cultures. The Inupiat
and other Alaska Native communities depend upon clean, vibrant oceans. Bowhead whales, for instance, provide
both the primary subsistence food and cultural identity for the Inupiat who live along the Beaufort Sea. Many villagers worry that
offshore drilling will endanger these traditions with its sonar blasts, increased ship traffic, and threat of
spills. 6. Drilling for Oil in the Arctic Will Invite More Climate Disruption Rising temperatures are heating
the Arctic twice as fast as the rest of the planet. This shift has grave consequences for all of us. The Arctic is the air
conditioner for the world—as it warms, it modifies the jet stream and influences weather patterns over
North America, Europe, and Russia and intensify extreme weather events in our communities. If we are going to prevent more
climate destruction, America must reduce the amount of carbon we pump into the air. Investing in clean energy will move us forward, but
drilling for Arctic oil will take us in the wrong direction. And all the carbon released when Arctic oil was burned would make this unique and
beautiful region even more compromised by climate change. This must be the place we decide as a nation: no drilling here. It’s not safe for the
Arctic, and it’s not smart for the climate. Even oil
companies are starting to recognize that drilling here makes no
sense. ConocoPhilips, Norway’s Statoil, and Total SA have all postponed or cancelled their plans to drill in America’s Arctic. Now it’s time for
the Obama Administration to stop going literally to the ends of the Earth for dirty fossil fuels that undercut progress controlling climate change,
and cost us global leadership on the most important environmental issue of our age. It’s time for President Obama to end offshore drilling in
the Arctic Ocean.
A2: Arctic Drilling Safe
Prefer our ev – aff studies are flawed and underestimate risks and impacts
Dave '14
In the ongoing battle over offshore drilling, a federal judge in Alaska told regulators Thursday to redo an
environmental impact study that underestimated the amount of recoverable oil and, potentially, the
risks to delicate Arctic habitat. The decision by U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline stopped short of scrapping
the $2.6 billion in leases, however. His ruling followed an appeals court decision in January that federal officials
had arbitrarily decided drilling companies could extract 1 billion barrels of oil from the shallow waters off
the northwest coast of Alaska. That figure led to a misguided environmental study, the U.S. 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals said. Now, the U.S. Department of the Interior must redo the supplemental analysis using
what’s expected to be a much higher estimate for the amount of oil extractable. In the meantime, no
drilling for oil or natural gas can take place. U.S. Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) called the order “good
news," saying it “should lead to resumption of oil and gas development in our state’s promising offshore” by next
summer. Earth Justice attorney Erik Grafe, who opposes drilling and who helped bring the lawsuit, also hailed the
decision. The opposing sides had worked for the past two months to negotiate a deal, which the judge adopted
almost completely. Grafe told the Los Angeles Times the redo was a “good outcome,” considering that the
erroneous figure of 1 billion barrels “infected every part of the original analysis.” He said the new report would
likely show that oil companies would bring far more boats, planes, drill rigs and pipelines. As a result, he
expects the analysis to show a much greater disturbance to the habitat of whales, walruses, polar bears
and other animals. In light of the new analysis, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will have to decide
whether to move forward with or cancel the agreed-upon leases with Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips and other
companies. “We’re hopeful the government will come to the conclusion that it’s wrong to sell the
leases,” Grafe said. “I’m not sure how long it will take for the new study, but the government has a lot
of work ahead of itself. It’s a big opportunity for the government to choose a better path in the Arctic.”
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management declined to comment. The agency has maintained that the 1-billionbarrel estimate made economic sense because the oil companies have said drilling in the area is a major technical
challenge. A week after the January ruling, Shell abandoned exploration efforts in the Arctic for the rest of this
year. Federal officials will be able to process and review Arctic drilling applications, but they won’t be able to
approve them until the environmental study is complete. If drilling ultimately moves forward, continuing the
paperwork process allows the companies to quickly get started in the Chukchi Sea.
“This lawsuit was just another delaying tactic by those who oppose responsible development in Alaska, so Alaskans
should be relieved that we’re now getting on with the business we know how to do so well,” Begich said in a
statement. The senator has asked federal officials to extend the 10-year deals because the lawsuits have cost a
chunk of time since they were brought in 2008.
Species Interference
Sonic Cannons are a prerequisite and wreck biodiversity
Associated Press 7/18
The Associated Press is an American multinational nonprofit news agency headquartered in New York City,
7/18/14, “Obama adminstration opens Eastern Seaboard to offshore oil exploration for first time in decades”,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/18/obama-opens-eastern-seaboard-to-offshore-oil-exploration-forfirst-time-in/.
The sonic cannons are already in use in the western Gulf of Mexico, off Alaska and other offshore oil operations around the world. They are
towed behind boats, sending strong pulses of sound into the ocean every 10 seconds or so. The pulses reverberate beneath the sea floor and
bounce back to the surface, where they are measured by hydrophones. Computers then translate the data into high resolution, threedimensional images."It's like a sonogram of the earth," said Andy Radford, a petroleum engineer at the American Petroleum Institute, an oil
and gas trade association in Washington DC. "You can't see the oil and gas, but you can see the structures in the earth that might hold oil and
gas." The surveys can have other benefits, including mapping habitats for marine life, identifying solid undersea flooring for wind energy
turbines, and locating spots where sand can be collected for beach restoration. But fossil fuel mostly funds this research, and the data in many
cases will be held as energy company secrets. The sonic cannons are often fired continually for weeks or months, and multiple mapping
projects are expected to be operating simultaneously as companies gather competitive data. To get permits for this work, companies will need
whale-spotting observers onboard, and undersea acoustic tests will be required before each mapping trip. Certain habitats will be closed during
the sounds -- which water amplifies by orders of magnitude -- pose unavoidable
dangers for whales, fish and sea turtles that also use sound to communicate across hundreds of miles.
More than 120,000 people or groups sent comments to the government, which held hearings and spent
years developing these rules. The bureau's environmental impact study estimates that more than
138,000 sea creatures could be harmed, including nine of the 500 north Atlantic right whales remaining
in the world. Of foremost concern are endangered species like these whales, which give birth off the
shores of northern Florida and southern Georgia before migrating north each year. Since the cetaceans
are so scarce, any impact from this intense noise pollution on feeding or communications could have
long-term effects, Scott Kraus, a right whale expert at the John H. Prescott Marine Laboratory in Boston, said. "No one
has been allowed to test anything like this on right whales," Kraus said of the seismic cannons. "(The Obama
birthing or feeding seasons. Still,
administration) has authorized a giant experiment on right whales that this country would never allow researchers to do." This area of the
Atlantic has been closed to oil exploration since the 1980s, when some exploratory wells were drilled. It has never had significant offshore
production. And now, with advances in undersea mapping technology, companies expect to be able to pinpoint significant oil and gas
reserves."One thing we find is, the more you get out and drill and explore to confirm what you see in the seismic -- you end up finding more oil
and gas than what you think is out there when you started," Radford said.
Acoustic noises from offshore drilling devastate ocean biodiversity and
whales
Bittle 7/20 [“Offshore Oil Exploration in the Atlantic? Bad Idea”, Jason Bittle, reporter for OnEarth, July 30,
2014, the Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/onearth/offshore-oil-exploration_b_5635472.html
//MER]
Suppose someone was detonating a stick of dynamite in your neighborhood. BOOM. Every 10 to 12 seconds.
BOOM. For days and weeks and months on end. BOOM. Maybe you could just ignore the noise. BOOM. Or maybe
you'd go a little crazy. BOOM. Maybe you lose your appetite. BOOM. And stop trying to ask your kids how their day
went. BOOM. Maybe you start walking in circles. BOOM. Or get lost. And good luck getting your significant other
BOOM to cuddle up and BOOM relax for a little BOOM romantic BOOM fun BOOM time. BOOM. BOOM. BOOMBOOM-BOOOOOMMMMM! Annoying, isn't it? But guess what -- that's what life will be like for marine mammals in
the Atlantic Ocean now that the Obama administration has re-opened the East Coast, from Delaware to Florida, to
offshore oil and gas exploration. With ban on offshore drilling in the Atlantic expiring in 2017, seismic testing could
begin as early as next year. What's the connection between wells and whales? In a word, noise. To find deposits
buried deep below the seafloor, the oil and gas industry trawls the ocean with powerful airgun arrays. These
cannons sound off every 10 to 12 seconds, recording the acoustic vibrations that bounce back as a way to map the
sea bottom. An engineer for the American Petroleum Institute euphemistically likens the practice to "a sonogram
of the Earth." Riiiiighhhht ... We use sonograms to check in on fetuses because the sound waves do them no harm.
We conduct them in quiet, dark rooms causing little discomfort other than a squirt of cold jelly on the mom's
tummy. So let me ask you, does this look like a sonogram? Acoustic noise, whether it's seismic testing for oil and
gas or sonar exercises conducted by the Navy, creates what some biologists call an "acoustic smog." This
smog interferes with the way marine mammals perceive the world. In a way, it's like they go blind.
Whales use sound to eat, hunt, find mates, navigate, and communicate with their young and the rest of
their pod. Sonic booms jeopardize all of those activities. National Geographic reports that the government's
own estimates have the noise pollution injuring (potentially killing) more than 138,000 marine mammals, and
disrupting the migration, feeding, and reproductive behaviors for 13.6 million others. Seismic testing
produces a cacophony nearly on par with exploding dynamite. In fact, the industry actually used to employ
dynamite in its search for undersea oil and gas deposits before airguns became a safer alternative. (Safer for
workers, that is. Not whales.) "Whales use sound for virtually everything they do to survive and reproduce
in the wild," says Michael Jasny, a marine mammal expert with NRDC (which publishes OnEarth), "and when we
make sounds on the order of an industrial seismic survey, we are fundamentally compromising the
foundation on which marine life depends." And it's not just about the nearby booms. Sonic waves pervade through
entire ocean basins. In one study, scientists found that a single seismic test can drown out the low-frequency calls
of endangered baleen whales for 10,000 square nautical miles -- that's larger than the state of West Virginia.
Worse still, airguns can make endangered fin and humpback whales fall silent over areas of the ocean 10 times
larger than that. OK, so a whale's survival and sense of serenity doesn't tug at your heartstrings, but you should
know that opening up the East Coast to offshore drilling would hit you in your stomach, too. Seismic surveys,
studies show, negatively affect the fishing industry, reducing catch rates for cod, haddock, and rockfish.
And I don't need to remind you that the fossil fuels we haul out of the ocean exacerbate climate change, right ?
Offshore drilling, lest we forget, also risks oil spills that devastate whale, fish, and human communities.
"The use of seismic airguns is [the] first step to expanding dirty and dangerous offshore drilling to the
Atlantic Ocean, bringing us one step closer to another disaster like the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill,"
Claire Douglass of Oceana told the Balitimore Sun. Now that the path to drilling in the Atlantic is open, the fight to
save marine life would require stopping oil and gas companies from getting permits for seismic testing
and eventually, drilling. And if that doesn't work, environmentalists might have to appeal to the courts.
Remember, the oil and gas industry isn't the only one who knows how to bring the noise. BOOM go lawsuits, too.
Offshore drilling risks health of marine wildlife and disrupts major fisheries
Defenders of Wildlife '10 (Defenders of Wildlife has been working to protect our nation's wildlife
since 1947.)
The following is a statement by Defenders of Wildlife President and CEO Rodger Schlickeisen:
“While we are pleased that the Obama administration has decided to permanently protect Alaska’s salmon-rich
Bristol Bay and continue protection of the California coast until 2017, we’re extremely concerned about the
administration’s planned expansion of offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, south Atlantic, and mid-Atlantic
coasts. The administration’s planned expansion of oil drilling risks the health of marine wildlife, fisheries,
and coastal economies. It continues and expands our dependence on fossil fuels at a time when we
need to reduce our dependence in order to address the harmful impacts of global warming. “If this
drilling plan is fully implemented as President Obama outlined it today, it could spell disaster for much of
America’s coastline, and the tourism on which many coastal communities depend economically. If oil drilling is
allowed to proceed off our mid-Atlantic coast, for example, major fisheries and wildlife areas including the
Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina’s Outer Banks will be subject to disruptive seismic testing and
potentially catastrophic oil spills. Oil exploration and drilling will pose a particular risk to the highly
endangered North Atlantic right whale, which migrates along our entire Atlantic coast. Defenders of
Wildlife and other organizations have recently petitioned to expand critical habitat protection for the North
Atlantic right whale to include areas being considered for drilling off the south and mid-Atlantic coast. Any drilling
in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas could prove disastrous for those fragile Arctic ecosystems and
imperiled species such as polar bears.
OCS Drilling causes seismic testing devastating marine ecosystems
On Earth 7/25 (On Earth, A internet survival guide for the planet)
But guess what—that’s what life will be like for marine mammals in the Atlantic Ocean now that the Obama
Administration has re-opened the East Coast, from Delaware to Florida, to offshore oil and gas exploration. With
ban on offshore drilling in the Atlantic expiring in 2017, seismic testing could begin as early as next year. What’s
the connection between wells and whales? In a word, noise. To find deposits buried deep below the seafloor,
the oil and gas industry trawls the ocean with powerful airgun arrays. These cannons sound off every 10
to 12 seconds, recording the acoustic vibrations that bounce back as a way to map the sea bottom. An
engineer for the American Petroleum Institute euphemistically likens the practice to “a sonogram of the
Earth.” Riiiiighhhht … We use sonograms to check in on fetuses because the sound waves do them no harm. We
conduct them in quiet, dark rooms causing little discomfort other than a squirt of cold jelly on the mom’s tummy.
So let me ask you, does this look like a sonogram? Acoustic noise, whether it’s seismic testing for oil and gas
or sonar exercises conducted by the Navy, creates what some biologists call an “acoustic smog.” This
smog interferes with the way marine mammals perceive the world. In a way, it’s like they go blind.
Whales use sound to eat, hunt, find mates, navigate, and communicate with their young and the rest of their pod.
Sonic booms jeopardize all of those activities. National Geographic reports that the government's own
estimates have the noise pollution injuring (potentially killing) more than 138,000 marine mammals, and
disrupting the migration, feeding, and reproductive behaviors for 13.6 million others. Seismic testing
produces a cacophony nearly on par with exploding dynamite. In fact, the industry actually used to employ
dynamite in its search for undersea oil and gas deposits before airguns became a safer alternative. (Safer for
workers, that is. Not whales.)
“Whales use sound for virtually everything they do to survive and reproduce in the wild,” says Michael Jasny, a
marine mammal expert with NRDC (which publishes OnEarth), “and when we make sounds on the order of an
industrial seismic survey, we are fundamentally compromising the foundation on which marine life depends.” And
it’s not just about the nearby booms. Sonic waves pervade through entire ocean basins. In one study,
scientists found that a single seismic test can drown out the low-frequency calls of endangered baleen
whales for 10,000 square nautical miles—that’s larger than the state of West Virginia. Worse still, airguns can
make endangered fin and humpback whales fall silent over areas of the ocean 10 times larger than that. OK, so a
whale’s survival and sense of serenity doesn’t tug at your heartstrings, but you should know that opening up the
East Coast to offshore drilling would hit you in your stomach, too. Seismic surveys, studies show, negatively
affect the fishing industry, reducing catch rates for cod, haddock, and rockfish. And I don’t need to remind
you that the fossil fuels we haul out of the ocean exacerbate climate change, right? Offshore drilling, lest we
forget, also risks oil spills that devastate whale, fish, and human communities. "The use of seismic
airguns is [the] first step to expanding dirty and dangerous offshore drilling to the Atlantic Ocean,
bringing us one step closer to another disaster like the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill," Claire Douglass
of Oceana told the Baltimore Sun. Now that the path to drilling in the Atlantic is open, the fight to save
marine life would require stopping oil and gas companies from getting permits for seismic testing and
eventually, drilling. And if that doesn’t work, environmentalists might have to appeal to the courts. Remember,
the oil and gas industry isn’t the only one who knows how to bring the noise. BOOM go lawsuits, too.
Seismic surveys disrupts and kills vital marine wildlife
National Geographic '14
Drilling in the Atlantic could add “1.3 million barrels equivalent per day to domestic energy production, which is
about 70 percent of the current output from the Gulf of Mexico, and raise $51 billion in new revenue for
government,” said Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations for the American Petroleum Institute
(API) at a news conference Thursday after the release of the EIS. BOEM Director Tommy Beaudreau said in a
statement that the agency is “employing a comprehensive adaptive management strategy” that takes into account
the fact that scientific knowledge about the Atlantic Ocean is constantly changing and building. “New information
and analyses will continue to be developed over time,” he said.
"The Department and BOEM have been steadfast in our commitment to balancing the need for understanding
offshore energy resources with the protection of the human and marine environment using the best available
science as the basis of this environmental review," Beaudreau said.
The EIS concludes that there would be “minor to negligible” impact to most wildlife, with the exception of marine
mammals and turtles, for which impact could be “moderate.” The review estimates that about 138,000
marine animals could be injured in some way, and perhaps 13.6 million could have their migration,
feeding, or other behavioral patterns disrupted by the seismic surveys.
Here is a rundown of the main Atlantic ocean species likely to be affected: North Atlantic Right Whales
Hunted almost to extinction partly because their docile nature and habit of swimming near the surface made them
easy targets and the “right” whales to hunt, the North Atlantic right whales have recovered only marginally even
though they have been protected from commercial hunting by international agreement since 1986. Fewer than
500 of these whales are alive today, and the proposed region for air-gun surveys coincides with the main
range of the remnants of the species. “It’s the rarest of the large whales,” Huelsenbeck said. “You can consider
it the American bison of the sea.” These stocky black whales grow to 40 or 50 feet (12-15 meters) and are easy to
spot because of the white patterns on their heads known as callosities made from infestations of whale lice. To
help protect these whales, BOEM proposes that during a key period when larger numbers are present, between
November and April, the air-gun surveys would be banned close to the coast. The limitation essentially would put a
narrow strip of the survey area off limits during the winter and early spring months, preventing seismic testing up
to 20 nautical miles (37 km) from shore. Environmentalists argue that such measures are unlikely to offer full
protection to the whales because new research shows that they swim much farther offshore. Cornell University
researchers placed listening stations off the coast and heard right whale calls at least 65 nautical miles (120
kilometers) out to sea. Humpback Whales Many other large cetaceans live in the proposed survey area,
including humpback whales, killer whales, sperm whales, and short-finned pilot whales, which use low
frequency sounds in their daily lives in many ways. “The mid- and south Atlantic is very special,” said
Huelsenbeck of Oceana. “It’s home to an abundance and diversity of marine mammals that’s almost unparalleled
throughout the world.” The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of NOAA, is in the final stages
of a 15-year research program gathering expert advice on how marine mammals are disturbed and
damaged by sound. Last week, a group of more than 100 scientists wrote to Obama urging him not to finalize the
EIS until the latest marine mammal acoustic guidance is available. Without the NMFS advice, the EIS will, they said,
“be scientifically deficient and quickly outdated.” Dolphins Large populations of many smaller cetaceans live in
the proposed survey area, including dolphins such as Atlantic spotted, bottlenose, and Risso’s dolphins. These
animals are especially sensitive to the higher frequency sounds produced when the air guns blast.
“The air guns operate in broadband,” said Huelsenbeck, producing a large range of frequencies, both high and low.
The higher pitched sounds don’t provide useful information to the surveyors, but they can damage dolphins’
hearing and disrupt their behavior. Alternative survey technologies are being developed that are likely to be less
harmful. Marine vibroseis, for example, would emit vibrations instead of bursts of intense sound. In its report, the
BOEM states that as marine vibroseis technologies are developed the agency would consider requiring and/or
incentivizing their use, but that this would not be a wholesale replacement for air guns. BOEM also proposes
spacing air-gun surveys at least 25 miles (40 kilometers) apart to reduce their cummulative impact. Huelsenbeck
points out that sounds in the ocean can travel much greater distances. The sound of air guns, he said, “can
disturb marine mammal behavior over 100 miles [170 kilometers] away.” BOEM’s recommendations also
will require survey vessels to use passive acoustic monitoring systems to listen for marine mammals’ calling in the
test areas, although the agency said the approach may not be entirely effective. “If they detect sensitive marine
life in the vicinity, then all operations stop immediately and are restarted only when the area is clear,” said API’s
Milito. Loggerhead Turtles Florida beaches are home to 90 percent of the world’s loggerhead turtle nesting
sites. Midway between Jacksonville and Miami, Brevard County alone has about 33,800 nests. Other species of
threatened or endangered sea turtle live in the region as well, including hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and green turtles.
Like the plan to close an area in Virginia to protect the right whale, BOEM proposes cordoning off near-coastal
waters off Brevard County during the turtle nesting season. No air-gun surveys would be allowed in the area from
May to October. With chunky heads and heart-shaped shells that can grow to about 3 feet (1 meter), loggerheads
are the second largest sea turtles after gigantic leatherbacks. Females spend years roaming the oceans, munching
shellfish as they go, before returning to the beach they were born on to lay their own eggs. Little is known about
the impact of noise on turtles but it is likely that juveniles might be especially vulnerable. After they hatch, they
swim straight out to sea, through areas where air-gun surveys would still be permitted. Commercial
Fish Air-gun surveys could also scare fish away from commercially important fishing grounds along the
coast. “Seismic testing has disrupted fisheries around the world,” said Oceana marine biologist Matthew
Huelsenbeck. Seismic surveying off the southwest coast of Africa in recent years has been linked to the
disruption of migrating tuna and consequently a dramatic decline in catches off the coast of Namibia.
Many species fished in the mid- and south Atlantic—including wahoo, swordfish, and billfishes—embark on longdistance migrations. This means that any impacts of air-gun surveys are likely to spread beyond the survey area
itself. BOEM’s report offers no measures to specifically deal with the impact on fish species, although it suggests
that slowly ramping up sound levels during surveys could be effective. “The process begins with a soft start, a
technique that gradually increases sound levels, allowing animals that may be sensitive to the sound to leave the
area,” said API’s Milito. But fish eggs and larvae can be killed by intense sound, and the the growth of
young scallops is also affected.
Sonic Cannons and drilling cause negative effects to the environment –
congress agrees
Berenson 7/24 [“Obama Approves Sonic Cannons to Map Atlantic for Offshore Oil and Gas”, Tessa Berenson,
editorial intern at Time Magazine and student at Yale University, July 24, 2014, Time Magazine,
http://time.com/3025678/offshore-drilling-atlantic-energy-oil-gas/ //MER]
Environmentalists worry about damage to shorelines, and to the tourist industry. They also worry about
the safety of ocean wildlife. The exploration will initially be conducted via seismic surveys that use sonic
cannons to locate oil and gas deposits beneath the ocean floor. The cannons emit sound waves louder than a
jet engine every ten seconds for weeks at a time. “We’re definitely concerned,” Hamilton Davis, energy
and climate change director for the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, told TIME. “ The exploration
activities lead in the direction of actual development of oil and gas, and from our perspective as a coastal
organization that worries about our environmental ecological landscape as well as our [tourism]
economy, the oil and gas industry certainly doesn’t seem to fit into that equation. Just the impacts from
exploration activities on marine wildlife I think would give most people pause… You’re talking about
hundreds of thousands of animals that will be negatively impacted as a consequence of these activities.”
BOEM said it approved the seismic surveys with the environment in mind. “After thoroughly reviewing the
analysis, coordinating with Federal agencies and considering extensive public input, the bureau has identified a
path forward that addresses the need to update the nearly four-decade-old data in the region while protecting
marine life and cultural sites,” said Acting BOEM Director Walter D. Cruickshank in a statement. Sonic c annons are
already used in the western Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska, but many constituents and elected
officials in the newly opened East Coast territory have expressed their concerns about the testing and
eventual drilling. Congressional officials from Florida, including Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Orlando, and Rep. Kathy
Castor, D-Tampa, signed a letter to President Obama opposing the decision. “Expanding unnecessary
drilling offshore simply puts too much at risk. Florida has more coastline than any other state in the continental
United States and its beaches and marine resources support the local economy across the state,” the letter states.
The area to be mapped is in federal waters, not under the jurisdiction of state law. Energy companies will apply for
drilling leases in 2018, when current congressional limits expire.
More offshore drilling harms wildlife and endangered species
Urbina 10--Ian Urbina--- May 13
th 2010--- reporter for The New York Times, based in the paper’s Washington bureau. He has degrees
in history from Georgetown University and the University of Chicago-- New York Times-- “US Said to Allow Drilling without Needed Permits”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp
WASHINGTON — The federal Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other
oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency
that assesses threats to endangered species — and despite strong warnings from that agency about the
impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf. Those approvals, federal records show, include one for the
well drilled by the Deepwater Horizon rig, which exploded on April 20, killing 11 workers and resulting in thousands
of barrels of oil spilling into the gulf each day. The Minerals Management Service, or M.M.S., also routinely
overruled its staff biologists and engineers who raised concerns about the safety and the environmental
impact of certain drilling proposals in the gulf and in Alaska, according to a half-dozen current and former agency
scientists. Those scientists said they were also regularly pressured by agency officials to change the
findings of their internal studies if they predicted that an accident was likely to occur or if wildlife
might be harmed . Under the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Minerals
Management Service is required to get permits to allow drilling where it might harm endangered species or marine
mammals. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, is partly responsible for
protecting endangered species and marine mammals. It has said on repeated occasions that drilling in
the gulf affects these animals, but the minerals agency since January 2009 has approved at least three
huge lease sales, 103 seismic blasting projects and 346 drilling plans. Agency records also show that
permission for those projects and plans was granted without getting the permits required under federal
law.
Expansion of drilling devastates endangered species.
Urbina 10--Ian Urbina--- May 13
th 2010--- reporter for The New York Times, based in the paper’s Washington bureau. He has degrees
in history from Georgetown University and the University of Chicago-- New York Times-- “US Said to Allow Drilling without Needed Permits”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp
Aside from allowing BP and other companies to drill in the gulf without getting the required permits
from NOAA, the minerals agency has also given BP and other drilling companies in the gulf blanket
exemptions from having to provide environmental impact statements. Much as BP’s drilling plan
asserted that there was no chance of an oil spill, the company also claimed in federal documents that its
drilling would not have any adverse effect on endangered species. The gulf is known for its biodiversity.
Various endangered species are found in the area where the Deepwater Horizon was drilling, including
sperm whales, blue whales and fin whales. In some instances, the minerals agency has indeed sought
and received permits in the gulf to harm certain endangered species like green and loggerhead sea
turtles. But the agency has not received these permits for endangered species like the sperm and
humpback whales, which are more common in the areas where drilling occurs and thus are more likely
to be affected. Tensions between scientists and managers at the agency erupted in one case last year
involving a rig in the gulf called the BP Atlantis. An agency scientist complained to his bosses of
catastrophic safety and environmental violations. The scientist said these complaints were ignored, so
he took his concerns to higher officials at the Interior Department. “The purpose of this letter is to
restate in writing our concern that the BP Atlantis project presently poses a threat of serious,
immediate, potentially irreparable and catastrophic harm to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and its
marine environment, and to summarize how BP’s conduct has violated federal law and regulations,”
David L. Perry, a lawyer acting on behalf of Kenneth Abbott, a BP contractor wrote in a letter to officials
at the Interior Department that was dated May 27. The letter added: “From our conversation on the
phone, we understand that M.M.S. is already aware that undersea manifolds have been leaking and
that major flow lines must already be replaced. Failure of this critical undersea equipment has
potentially catastrophic environmental consequences.”
Spills
Spills likely and devastating – prefer our ev – risks systemically
underestimated by bias
Urbina 10--Ian Urbina--- May 13th 2010--- reporter for The New York Times, based in the paper’s Washington bureau. He has degrees in
history from Georgetown University and the University of Chicago-- New York Times-- “US Said to Allow Drilling without Needed Permits”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp
In a letter from September 2009, obtained by The New York Times, NOAA accused the minerals agency of a
pattern of understating the likelihood and potential consequences of a major spill in the gulf and
understating the frequency of spills that have already occurred there. The letter accuses the agency of
highlighting the safety of offshore oil drilling operations while overlooking more recent evidence to the contrary.
The data used by the agency to justify its approval of drilling operations in the gulf play down the fact
that spills have been increasing and understate the “risks and impacts of accidental spills,” the letter
states. NOAA declined several requests for comment. The accusation that the minerals agency has ignored risks is
also being levied by scientists working for the agency. Managers at the agency have routinely overruled staff
scientists whose findings highlight the environmental risks of drilling, according to a half-dozen current or former
agency scientists. The scientists, none of whom wanted to be quoted by name for fear of reprisals by the agency or
by those in the industry, said they had repeatedly had their scientific findings changed to indicate no
environmental impact or had their calculations of spill risks downgraded. “You simply are not allowed to
conclude that the drilling will have an impact,” said one scientist who has worked for the minerals
agency for more than a decade. “If you find the risks of a spill are high or you conclude that a certain
species will be affected, your report gets disappeared in a desk drawer and they find another scientist to
redo it or they rewrite it for you.” Another biologist who left the agency in 2005 after more than five
years said that agency officials went out of their way to accommodate the oil and gas industry. He said,
for example, that seismic activity from drilling can have a devastating effect on mammals and fish, but that agency
officials rarely enforced the regulations meant to limit those effects
Drilling increases likelihood of Oil Spills
The Washington Post '12 (Steven Mufson, Reporter of the Washington Post, covers energy and
other financial news)
Two years after a blowout on BP’s Macondo well killed 11 men and triggered the largest oil spill in U.S.
history, oil companies are again plying the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Forty-one deep-water rigs are in
the gulf. The vast majority of them are drilling new holes or working over old ones, while the other behemoths are
idle as they await work or repairs. A brand new rig — the South Korean-built Pacific Santa Ana, capable of drilling
to a depth of 7.5 miles — is on its way to a Chevron well. But three recent incidents in other parts of the world
show just how risky and sensitive offshore drilling remains. In the North Sea, French oil giant Total is still
battling to regain control of a natural gas well that has been leaking for nearly four weeks. Meanwhile, Brazil
has confiscated the passports of 11 Chevron employees and five employees of drilling contractor
Transocean as they await trial on criminal charges related to an offshore oil spill there. And in
December, about 40,000 barrels of crude oil leaked out of a five-year-old loading line between a floating
storage vessel and an oil tanker in a Royal Dutch Shell field off the coast of Nigeria. Many experts say that
even with tougher regulations here in the United States, such incidents are inevitable. “I’m not saying we
shouldn’t do it [offshore drilling], but we ought to go at it with our eyes open,” said Roger Rufe, a retired Coast
Guard vice admiral. “We can’t do it with a human-designed system and not expect that there will be occasional
problems with it.”
.
Spills impacts
Oil Spills causes food decline
CBC News 14
“We’re definitely concerned,” says Frank Pokiak, chair of the Inuvialuit Game Council in
Inuvik.He says all Inuvialuit communities in the N.W.T. would be affected by a spill. "The
majority of our food comes from the ocean, so if there's an oil spill that happens out there, it's
going to affect us quite drastically."
Drilling for Oil will cause a laundry list of impacts
Conathan '12 (Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at American Progress. His work focuses on driving
progressive solutions to the multitude of problems facing the world’s oceans. Prior to joining American Progress, Mike
spent five years staffing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Oceans,
Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard)
More domestic oil and gas drilling will turn our public lands and oceans into pincushions, pave the way for the next
BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, line Big Oil’s pockets with escalating profits, and increase the 25 percent among
others, is share of planet-stifling greenhouse gas emissions that come from domestic fossil-fuel production. Albert
Einstein, credited with observing that the definition of insanity is “continuing to do the same thing over
and over, and then expecting different results.” Perhaps Einstein wasn’t an economics professor, but he was
still a pretty bright guy.
Warming
US Warming leadership high now but further expansions in offshore
drilling devastate it and ensure warming
Barron-Lopez 7/31 [“Groups Warn Offshore Drilling Undercuts Obama’s Climate Legacy”, Laura BarronLopez, energy and environment reporter at The Hill, July 31, 2014, The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/energyenvironment/213925-greens-warn-offshore-drilling-undercuts-obamas-climate-fight //MER]
Environmental groups warned the Obama administration that opening new areas to offshore drilling would
undermine the president's climate change agenda. In a letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, 21 green
groups urge the administration to exclude the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans from its new five-year lease plan
for oil and gas drilling. "New offshore leasing and drilling is also at odds with fighting climate disruption,"
the letter sent to Jewell on Thursday states. "President Obama and this Administration have done more to
combat climate change than any other in American history." The Interior Department sent out a request for
information in June for oil and gas companies and other stakeholders to weigh in on which areas of the Outer
Continental Shelf should be open to drilling from 2017 to 2022. On Wednesday, the department said it would
extend the comment period for another 15 days. Climate change is a central part of Obama's second-term
legacy, evident in the extensive public relations push the administration launched this week to bulk up support for
the president's carbon pollution rules on existing power plants. The groups argue that opening up areas like the
Atlantic, which has been closed to exploration for roughly 30 years, would
jeopardize Obama's climate legacy, and
credibility. "If we are serious about averting an additional 2-degree temperature increase, and avoiding
the most catastrophic impacts of climate change, we have to keep dirty fuels like oil and gas in the
ground, and that should start with protecting fragile areas and areas that have not yet been open to exploration,"
the letter states. "The President's work fighting climate disruption must extend to include protecting our
coasts and beaches from drilling," it adds. The green groups also ask the administration to exclude Bristol Bay in
Alaska from drilling, and to cancel the existing lease for the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in the Arctic, preventing
Shell from moving forward on future drilling plans. Opening up new areas would threaten billion-dollar coastal
economies, the groups explain, and open fragile ecosystems to possible spills and pollution. Groups that
signed the letter include the Sierra Club, Oceana, Alaska Wilderness League and League of Conservation Voters.
Oil drilling increases consumption – pushes warming past tipping point
Noppen 13-- Trip Van Noppen—December 5
th,
2014-- Earthjustice as its president, leading the organization's staff, board, and
supporters to advance its mission of using the courts to protect our environment and people's health. Trip has degrees from Yale and the
University of North Carolina, and he clerked for a federal district judge. He then practiced law in Raleigh, NC, in a litigation practice
emphasizing civil rights, employment, environmental, and toxic tort cases. In 1998, he joined the Southern Environmental Law Center and
became director of its Carolinas Office—The Huffington Post-- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trip-van-noppen/expanding-oil-drillingin_b_4373519.html
President Obama's "all of the above" energy strategy just doesn't fit in many places, especially not in the Arctic
Ocean. As the Arctic is heating up twice as fast as the rest of the world and melting at record rates, the
Obama administration wants to know if additional oil drilling in more places in the Chukchi Sea is a good
idea. The agency in charge of the leasing areas on the outer continental shelf for offshore oil and gas activities has
already offered tens of millions of acres of the Arctic Ocean to oil companies, but now the agency is considering a
plan to open up even more of this extraordinary part of the planet to Big Oil. The question is -- can we afford to
drill for oil in one of the most pristine, productive ocean ecosystems in the world right when we need to
take aggressive action to limit climate change? Scientists have calculated a "carbon budget," which is
the amount of carbon dioxide we can safely release into the atmosphere before 2050 and stay in the
range of a 2-degree temperature rise. The IPCC says no more than 820 billion metric tons of carbon can
be released, of which 515 already had been by 2011. Burning even a portion of the already discovered
fossil fuel reserves gets us beyond the upper limit. According to the International Energy Agency: "[n]o more
than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2°C
goal." We should not be investing in exploring for even more oil in the most extreme, risky, and special
places when we can't even afford to burn the oil from known, existing reserves.
OCS causes irreversible climate change
Steiner '14 (Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation biologist.)
New leasing program would commit U.S. to 40 years of carbon-intensive energy that world climate
cannot afford In a move that could rival the climate impacts of the Alberta tar sands and Keystone XL
pipeline, and would release far more atmospheric carbon than that saved by the new EPA power plant
and vehicle rules, the Obama administration just initiated its 2017-2022 process to expand oil and gas
drilling on the nation's outer continental shelf (OCS) — including the Arctic, Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of
Mexico. The initial public comment period on the plan closes July 31, 2014. Despite the fact that many of the 2011
National Oil Spill Commission's recommendations to improve offshore drilling safety have yet to be implemented,
and the certainty of more oil spills, this new leasing program would commit the nation to another 40 years
of carbon-intensive energy that world climate cannot afford. In addition to the proven offshore reserves
already in production (currently providing 18 percent of domestic oil and 5 percent of domestic gas production),
the government estimates that the U.S. OCS contains an additional 90 billion barrels of oil and 400 trillion cubic
feet of natural gas yet to be discovered. Industry thinks there is more. History shows that once oil is
discovered, it will be produced. Burning this much oil and gas would release over 60 billion tons of CO2
to the atmosphere — a "carbon bomb" almost as large as the entire Alberta tars sands. Just as with the tar
sands (with 168 billion barrels of proven reserves), producing this U.S. offshore oil could be "game over" for
efforts to contain climate change. And this offshore carbon would dwarf the one or two billion tons of
CO2 saved by the new power plant and vehicle rules by 2030. Without doubt, the combined carbon from
offshore oil (in the U.S. and other nations), and tar sands oil, would be disastrous for climate. But
industry sees billions of dollars lying in the seabed, and seems to care little about climate impacts. If we
want to stabilize climate and secure a sustainable future, the carbon now safely buried beneath the seabed, just as
in the tar sands, should be left right where it is - buried. In fact, a landmark 2013 study by the Carbon Tracker
Initiative in the U.K. concluded that, in order to avoid climate warming exceeding the critical target of 2
degrees Celsius, two-thirds of world's remaining hydrocarbon reserves must be left in the ground. That
study, co-authored with the London School of Economics, warns that in the coming decade, $6 trillion could be
wasted in finding and developing "unburnable carbon." To commit to another four decades of carbon-
intensive energy production as envisioned by the new OCS plan - Obama's "all-of-the-above" ("businessas-usual") energy policy — would dangerously delay our switch to sustainable, low-carbon energy, and
virtually guarantee future climate chaos. Given the scientific consensus for the urgent need to reduce carbon
emissions, this new OCS plan is irresponsible and reckless. More offshore drilling is not a solution to our
energy-climate crisis, but would only deepen and prolong the crisis, likely until it is too late. It is time to
say "no" to this self-destructive energy path, and get busy building the future sustainable energy
economy.