Aff Cards
States CP – Perm Solves
Federal government can’t solve alone
Amy McIntire, civil litigation associate at Chaffe McCall LLP, Notre Dame Law, 2/24/14, “OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ON
THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF: THE UPHILL BATTLE FOR STATE INPUT INTO FEDERAL POLICY” Texas Journal of Oil, Gas,
and Energy Law, http://tjogel.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/10_Volume-9-Issue-1-McIntire_Final.pdf //RX
Cooperation between state and federal governments in OCS development is required for a
variety of reasons. First, since OCS regulation and programs often “affect land use, lifestyles, and local economic activity, federal
officials often solicit local support through cooperation in order to alleviate local concerns about federal
intrusion into local matters.”150 Second, the federal government alone does not possess adequate
resources to address all of the nation’s environmental regulatory programs and problems
without help from state and local authorities.151 Finally, given the size and diversity of U.S.
offshore lands, such cooperation is needed to take into account the variation of environmental
concerns among the many regions and the policy considerations involved in environmental
decision-making.152 The ability of states to individually tailor environmental regulation to
fit the specific needs of the local region is perhaps the greatest benefit of cooperative
federalism.153
Politics Links
1NC Link
Obama can only lose political capital by advocating offshore drilling
Hobson 4/18 Margaret is a writer for E&E Publishing. “OFFSHORE DRILLING: Obama's development plans gain little political
traction in years since Gulf spill,” 2012, http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/04/18/1
“OFFSHORE DRILLING: Obama's development plans gain little political traction in years since Gulf
spill,” President Obama is embracing the offshore oil and gas development policies he proposed in early 2010 but were sidelined in
the shadow of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.¶ Two years after the BP PLC oil rig exploded, killing 11 people and causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history, Obama's "all of the above" energy
policy includes offshore drilling provisions that are nearly identical to his aggressive March 2010 drilling plan.¶ Since the moratorium on offshore oil drilling ended in late 2010, the
administration expanded oil and gas development in the western and central Gulf of Mexico and announced plans for lease sales in the eastern Gulf. The White House appears poised to allow
Royal Dutch Shell PLC to begin exploring for oil this summer in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas and to open oil industry access to the Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. The administration is
also paving the way for oil and gas seismic studies along the mid- and south Atlantic coasts, the first such survey in 30 years.¶ While opening more offshore lands to oil and gas development, the
Obama administration has also taken steps to make offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by seven
members of President Obama's oil spill commission.¶ That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the Interior Department and industry for making
progress in improving offshore oil development safety, environmental protection and oil spill preparation.¶ An environmental group was less complimentary. A report yesterday by Oceana
charged that the measures adopted by government and industry are "woefully inadequate."¶ As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per gallon,
Obama's offshore oil development policies aren't winning him any political capital. The
environmental community hates the drilling proposals. The Republicans and oil industry
officials complain that the White House hasn't gone far enough. And independent voters
are confused by the president's rhetoric.
2NC/1NR Link Wall
Plan sparks a fight kills pc
Morgan, 11 (Curtis, Tampa Bay Times, “A year after Deepwater Horizon disaster, opposition
to oil drilling fades” 4/18, http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/a-year-after-deepwaterhorizon-disaster-opposition-to-oil-drilling-fades/1164429) Nelson=Florida Senator Bill Nelson,
Fuller = Manley Fuller, president of the Florida Wildlife Federation
In Washington, the Obama administration has
adopted what Interior Secretary Salazar called a "thoughtful and deliberate
approach'' to reopening the gulf, with a new oversight agency and new safety measures — notably,
one mandating that the industry develop deep-water containment systems for worst-case blowouts, like the one that destroyed the Deepwater
Horizon. In October, the
White House lifted the drilling ban it imposed after the BP spill but didn't start
issuing new permits until last month, approving 10 new deep water wells so far, with 15 more in process. The administration
also agreed to open new territory for exploration by selling new leases — but only in the already heavily drilled central and western gulf. The
three bills approved by a House committee last week don't target Florida waters specifically but lawmakers potentially could use them as tools to
carve out prime areas for drilling, or shrink or lift the moratorium. For now, with
the House and Senate controlled by
different parties, it's doubtful any drilling bill can make it out of Congress . Nelson and most
environmentalists believe the ban on Florida's federal waters can survive political pressure and
maneuvering. "President Obama would have to lose and Bill Nelson would have to lose and they'd have to be replaced by people who
want to remove that boundary,'' said Fuller of the Florida Wildlife Federation. "I don't think that is going to happen.'' A more serious threat, they
say, is the possibility of a future Florida Legislature opening up state-controlled waters. That move would make it politically difficult to justify a
continuing federal ban. A coalition of environmental groups, Save Our Seas, Beaches and Shores, launched a petition drive after the 2009 House
vote to put a ban on drilling in state waters into the Florida Constitution. Former Gov. Charlie Crist's effort to do the same thing during a special
legislative session in July proved dead on arrival. So far, Fuller acknowledged, only a few thousand signatures have been gathered through an
online site, far short of the nearly 700,000 needed. In February, Crist's former chief financial officer, Alex Sink, who lost the governor's race to
Scott, agreed to co-chair the petition drive with the goal of getting an amendment proposal on the ballot by 2012 or, more realistically, the
following year. Fuller
doesn't anticipate lawmakers trying to ram through a divisive drilling bill in
the near future but "that is one reason why we want it in the Constitution. We don't want to see it as a possibility at all.''
Guaranteed fight – for every group that supports the plan, powerful groups
will fight it
Dloughy, 11/7/12 – reporter in the Hearst Newspapers Washington Bureau (Jennifer, “Obama
and the environment - a new path?” San Francisco Chronicle,
http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Obama-and-the-environment-a-new-path-4018611.php
President Obama
enters a second term in the White House free to toughen regulations on domestic
drilling despite industry objections - and to approve natural gas exports and the controversial Keystone XL pipeline without fear
of alienating environmentalists he needed at the ballot box. But the newly unfettered president will be navigating
many of the same political obstacles he faced during the first term, when his administration balanced new
pollution regulations by delaying mercury rules for power plants and giving the oil industry big concessions as part of other environmental
mandates. Obama also will
be facing a sharply divided Congress, with Republicans eager to use their
House control to undercut new environmental requirements and Democrats in charge of the
Senate pushing back against efforts to weaken them. "The president faces checks and balances
from Congress," noted Benjamin Salisbury, an analyst with FBR Capital Markets. "He also faces checks and balances from litigation,
from industry and negotiations and environmental groups."
And, empirics - Plan’s historically unpopular in Congress
Goode, 11 – staff writer for Politico (Darren, Politico, 5/18, "Senate slams GOP drilling bill",
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55241.html
A Senate Republican offshore drilling bill died Wednesday due to opposition from Democrats and
criticism from within the GOP that the measure didn't go far enough in enabling new production. The 42-57 vote left
sponsors well short of the needed 60 for the motion to proceed to pass. Five Republicans voted no — Sens.
Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, Richard Shelby, Olympia Snowe and David Vitter. No Democrats voted yes; Finance Committee Chairman
Max Baucus didn't vote.
2NC/1NR Turn shield
No turns---liberals hate the plan and conservatives won’t give Obama credit
for it
Walsh 11, Bryan, TIME Senior editor, November 9, “Why Obama’s Offshore Drilling Plan
Isn’t Making Anyone Happy,” http://science.time.com/2011/11/09/why-obamas-offshoredrilling-plan-isnt-making-anyone-happy/#ixzz26snhDbbI
Obama has set a target of reducing U.S. oil imports by a third by 2025, and greater domestic oil production
is going to have to be a part of that—including oil from the Arctic. Unfortunately for the President, no one’s likely to cheer him.
Conservatives and the oil industry won’t be happy until just about every square foot of the country is
available for drilling—though it is worth noting that oil production offshore has actually increased under Obama—and environmentalists
aren’t going to rally to support any sort of expanded drilling . With energy, as with so many other issues for
Obama, it’s lonely at the center .
Nonetheless,
Relaxing drilling restrictions empirically causes backlash---no risk of offense
Broder 10 John is a writer for the New York Times. “Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil
Drilling for First Time,” March 31,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html?_r=0
But while Mr. Obama has staked out middle ground on other environmental matters — supporting nuclear power, for example — the sheer breadth of the
offshore drilling decision will take some of his supporters aback. And it is no sure thing that it
will win support for a climate bill from undecided senators close to the oil industry, like Lisa Murkowski,
Republican of Alaska, or Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. ¶ The Senate is expected to take up a climate bill in the next few weeks — the last chance to enact
such legislation before midterm election concerns take over. Mr. Obama and his allies in the Senate have already made significant concessions on coal and nuclear
power to try to win votes from Republicans and moderate Democrats. The new plan now grants one of the biggest items on the oil industry’s wish list — access to
he risks a backlash from
some coastal governors, senators and environmental advocates, who say that the relatively
small amounts of oil to be gained in the offshore areas are not worth the environmental
risks.
vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling. ¶ But even as Mr. Obama curries favors with pro-drilling interests,
AT: Oil Lobby
Majority of congress opposes – despite oil lobby
NFN 12 “The Politics of Energy” News From Nowhere, July 6, 2012,
http://newsfromnowhere.info/archive/issue-15-april-20-2012/the-politics-of-energy
The oil industry is one of America's biggest recipients of corporate welfare, sucking up $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies every year. It's a worthy
cause, of course: Big guns like Exxon-Mobil rake in a paltry $9 billion each quarter in profits (free and clear – not gross income), so they need
the charity of the working-class taxpayer to stay afloat. But the oil
industry came pretty close to losing their
subsidies last week, when the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, backed by President Obama, came to a vote in the U.S. Senate. The
bill failed on a 51-48 vote. Even though a majority supported the bill , proponents didn’t get the
60 votes they needed for ‘cloture,’ which moves the bill to a vote. Some 88% of oil and gas industry campaign contributions went to
Republicans last year, and the investment paid off. In the Senate that was able to buy the votes of all but two – Olympia Snowe and Susan
Collins, the two famously moderate Republicans from Maine. The 48 Senators who voted against removing the oil industries subsidies received
almost $18 million in campaign contributions from the employees and political action committees of oil and gas companies during their
Congressional careers, while the 51 Senators who voted to get rid of the taxpayer subsidies received $3.7 million. Want to know what’s driving
America’s politics? Follow the money.
Certainly today's political climate is not nearly as favorable to the
oil industry as the halcyon days of the Bush administration. With the former CEO of Arbusto Petroleum at as Chief Executive and his
trusty sidekick Dick Cheney of Halliburton fame occupying the White House, they stacked federal agencies with oil executives and lobbyists,
appointing the industry's most vacal supporters to oversee regulation. Gale Norton, protege of James Watt at the Mountain States Legal
Foundation, spent her career as a lawyer defending the biggest polluters in the oil industry, was appointed as Secretary of the Interior, in charge
of the Bureau of Land Management, the agency that regulates most federal oil and gas operations. (Now she works for Shell). Steven Griles, a
notorious coalbed methane industry lobbyist who did a lot of his dirty work in Wyoming's Powder River Basin, was appointed Assistant
Secretary in charge of Lands and Minerals.
States CP
Solvency - General
States drive oil production best
Bluey 12 Rob, The Foundry, Heritage Foundation, “Under Obama, Oil and Gas Production on Federal Lands Is
Down 40%,” 1/18, http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/18/under-obama-oil-and-gas-production-on-federal-lands-isdown-40/
The vast majority of America’s new oil and gas production is happening on private lands in
states like North Dakota, Alaska and Texas. It’s not that Obama is devoid of responsibility. His administration oversees
oil and gas production on federal lands by issuing leases. But when measuring oil and gas production in areas under Obama’s jurisdiction, the
numbers tell a different story. Citing publicly available federal data, the House Natural Resources Committee noted these figures: Oil and
natural gas production on federal lands is down by more than 40 percent compared to 10 years ago. Under the Obama
administration, 2010 had the lowest number of onshore leases issued since 1984. The Obama administration held only one offshore lease sale in
2011. Despite the Obama administration’s restrictive policies for oil and gas production on federal lands, overall
production still
increased thanks to the pro-energy policies in states like North Dakota. “North Dakota has been the poster child for
what can happen when we unleash free enterprise and allow states to develop and commercialize their resources,” Heritage’s Nick Loris wrote
recently on The Foundry. “North Dakota is drilling at record pace.” The result: North Dakota’s unemployment rate is 3.4
percent, the lowest in the country. According to a recent report from IHS Global Insight, North Dakota already returned to pre-recession
employment along with energy-rich Alaska. Texas is expected to do so in the first quarter of 2012, followed by Nebraska and South Dakota next
year. Those states all have something in common: energy production. That policy aligns with recommendations
from Obama’s own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which yesterday issued a report calling for more energy production that includes
drilling and pipelines. Here’s the language from the Jobs Council report: As a nation, we need to take advantage of all our natural resources to
spur economic growth, create jobs and reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil. First, we
should allow more access to
oil, natural gas and coal opportunities on federal lands. Where sources of shale natural gas have been uncovered, federal, state and local
authorities should encourage its safe and responsible extraction. While the administration has supported
holding additional lease sales and evaluating new areas for drilling, further expanding and expediting the domestic production of fossil fuels both
offshore and onshore (in conjunction with more electric and natural gas vehicles) will reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil and the huge
outflow of U.S. dollars this reliance entails. In addition, policies that encourage rapid lease development while emphasizing the highest safety
standards will ensure companies responsibly drill for natural gas or oil and mine for coal or other our minerals in federal areas in a timely manner.
States sufficient – capability, jurisdiction
Dunlop 8 Becky Norton, University of Missouri-Kansas City Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation,
“Offshore Drilling: An Alternative to Funding Terrorism,” 10/30, http://www.heritage.org/about/speeches/offshoredrilling-an-alternative-to-funding-terrorism
What this issue comes down to is Constitutional federalism. It needs to be accepted that the states can
responsibly control and maintain their own waters instead of being micromanaged from
above. Increasing energy supply is a necessary step that the United States must take to be ensured of continued and new economic growth. It
is ridiculous to think that with America’s current mobile workforce infrastructure we can simply turn off all the gas pumps overnight and wake up
the next morning on a renewable energy source. We are working on renewable energy. And certainly even more needs to be done. But in the
interim, that transition can be made easier with the production of our own fuels to ease the burden on the average American at the pump. In
addition, producing
more of our own energy means that we will not have to depend on imports
from country’s that do not have our interests in mind. It is a very serious matter the possibility that taxpayers and
consumers are putting dollars into the hands of those who support terrorism and seek to undermine the United States. These include of course,
Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Becoming a nation in which America can be much more self reliant for its energy needs prevents the potential
funding of those who wish to destroy us. We can and should have trading relationships for energy with other nations but they should be ones we
deem to be friends and allies in the quest for greater human liberty. When I worked with Governor George Allen in Virginia we realized early
with the EPA that a one-size-fits-all blanket policy does not work. How could it? When you look over the landscape of our nation, it should be
apparent that what works for the beaches of Florida is most likely not going to be appropriate for the Black Hills of South Dakota. The
states should decide what policies best work for their citizens and their environment. Under the
policy I advocate, states would have option of choosing how to deal with their Outer Continental
Shelf lands , and the benefits of permitting drilling would go to the states. In a state like Florida, where
there are objections to energy development, there would be the option of not drilling but I would argue that by delegating these decisions to the
local level, Florida’s citizens would have more of a voice in how the drilling was conducted and how the revenues would be spent. By
letting the state decide how to go about developing OCS, citizens can hold their elected
legislators accountable. If Floridians disapprove of how a legislator stands on OCS development, they can vote him out in the next
election. Or conversely, if the drilling produces more revenue it can be used for something like the Everglades Restoration of improving the
stewardship of other state resources, or even reducing the tax burden on Floridians. Santa Barbara County in California recently reversed their
stand on offshore drilling and passed resolution supporting more drilling. Even with the federal moratoria lifted on Oct 1st, current Washington
policy dictates that a federal regulator knows better. More importantly is the matter of revenue. Currently, the federal government receives the
revenue derived from OCS energy production. Bills like H.R.6899 would continue this trend. In addition, it would strip the oil companies of $18
billion in tax breaks leaving both the states and oil companies with little incentive to allow or explore drilling, respectively. I purpose that the
federal government would no longer receive a cut of the money until the resources were developed and then its “cut” would come in the form of
tax revenue generated by increased economic activity. The simple fact would be that if OCS has been removed from federal jurisdiction, each
state would receive 80 percent of the revenues generated from production off its shore. It would share the remaining 20 percent with other states.
Obviously, a revenue-sharing structure of this sort would find critics in the federal government, which would lose roughly $5 billion each year.
Many big government environmentalists would object because the federal government uses some of these funds for environmental purposes, like
the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the National Historic Preservation Fund. Without OCS revenues, they would argue, these programs
would lose important income. My response to these critics would be that I
would rather have these revenues in the
hands of the states and not the federal government. When the states control the money,
they would be free to use it for the purposes they see fit. In many cases, this money could be
used to fund environmental initiatives that are made to fit the specific needs of the states as determined by their governors
and state legislatures. And, if citizens are not pleased with the way these revenues are being spent, they can simply elect new officials. It’s a much
better system than when the policy is centered in Washington, D.C. with bureaucrats who neither knew nor frankly care what states, localities and
citizens want or need. Current OCS policy is dictated by Washington and is a complex maze of bureaucratic regulations even without the
moratorium. In the case of OCS, a simple policy is the best policy. The
federal government should cede its authority to the
Let’s allow the states to decide what to do with their lands. Let’s stop the micromanagement, and
understand that those at the state level will without a shadow of a doubt responsibly take care of
their environment, their home. Let states use new tax revenues from drilling to reduce taxes on entrepreneurs, so they can fund and
states.
develop all matter of energy sources and infrastructure and increase the invention of new and better technologies.
Lifting state bans solves oil access
CNN, 8 7/14, http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-14/politics/bush.offshore_1_offshore-oil-drilling-fadel-gheitexploration?_s=PM:POLITICS
The White House estimates that there are 18 billion barrels of oil¶ offshore that have not
been exploited because of state bans, 10¶ billion to 12 billion in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and 800¶ billion barrels
of recoverable oil in the Green River Basin.
States have influence in OCS leasing
Amy McIntire, civil litigation associate at Chaffe McCall LLP, Notre Dame Law, 2/24/14, “OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ON
THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF: THE UPHILL BATTLE FOR STATE INPUT INTO FEDERAL POLICY” Texas Journal of Oil, Gas,
and Energy Law, http://tjogel.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/10_Volume-9-Issue-1-McIntire_Final.pdf //RX
With amendments to the current law likely to be an ineffective solution, coastal states should turn to less traditional methods if they hope to gain
substantial input in the OCS leasing process. The challenge by Louisiana to federal policy in Blanco v. Burton offers an excellent example of how
states can achieve their end goals through alternative means.202 Although Louisiana failed in its challenge of federal policy under the traditional
means of seeking enforcement of CZMA, OCSLA, and NEPA, it was able to gain substantial oversight of leasing activities through less
traditional means—a settlement agreement with the MMS.203 While every coastal state is unlikely to achieve its goals through a settlement
agreement with the federal government, other alternative means, or a combination of any of these alternative means, may offer an effective
solution. For instance, some states
have attempted to minimize the adverse environmental impact of
offshore oil and gas development through the adoption of local city and county
ordinances.204 These ordinances either bar the siting of onshore support facilities for
offshore development or subject the approval of such support facilities to a vote of local
citizens.205 Additionally, some coastal states have attempted to influence the OCS process by making OCS
leasing an issue in highly publicized presidential campaigns.206 By making offshore development a campaign
issue, these states hope for the election of a President who supports public sentiment against offshore development and will actually take action
once in office.207 Thus, considering the lack of success that has been achieved through traditional means as well as the exemplary success story
of Louisiana in Blanco v. Burton, these alternative means likely offer the best opportunity for states seeking substantial input in the OCS leasing
process. Clearly, no proposed solution, either traditional or non-traditional, is without its own set of flaws. The
regulatory scheme
governing OCS leasing is incredibly complex, and any successful solution will likely be
equally complicated. But, given the enormity of the economic and environmental concerns at
stake, coastal states’ interest in gaining some control in the OCS leasing process outweighs
the difficulties that they face. Therefore, to protect their own interests and obtain control in the OCS leasing process, coastal
states should explore less traditional means of challenging federal policy, such as the pursuit
of voluntary settlement agreements, the adoption of local ordinances, and the utilization of
the political process.
States solve better than the USfg
Robin Craig, University of Utah Law Prof, Summer 1993, “Treating Offshore Submerged Lands as Public Lands: A Historical
Perspective,” Public Law and Resources Law Review, http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1365&context=plrlr //RX
*g”=developed acreage
Either the coastal state or the federal government could provide G" as long as it acts in a social welfare maximizing manner and takes all of the
benefits and costs of the OCS into account. One
problem with federal government control of public goods
in general is the "distance of the government from the governed" that makes it difficult, or
costly, to estimate the benefits of the public good in each state. As a result, there is a tendency
toward uniformity in provision of the public good across different areas. This leads to too
much of the good in some states and too little in others. In addition, there is another problem
with federal control of the OCS that pertains to the nature of current state involvement.
Since the states get no compensation for allowing OCS development, in many cases they use
the consistency provisions of the CZMA to try to fight it. In so doing, they lower the federal government's
marginal cost of OCS preservation to MC' in Figure 1-i.e., by preserving an additional acre, the federal government now gives up the revenues
that could have been earned on that acre less the costs of fighting the state over development. These
costs take the form of
delays, administrative expenses, and litigation. In addition, because oil companies realize
that they themselves will incur costs as a result of state actions-i.e., it is often more difficult
or more costly to get certain permits approved-they bid lower amounts for tracts than they
otherwise would. As a result of the lower marginal cost curve, the amount of preserved OCS acreage is pushed beyond the optimum-i.e.,
G' > G' in Figure 1. These factors-i.e., the federal government's general tendency toward uniformity and
the states' actions pushing the federal government to provide greater preservation than is
optimal-suggest that state control might be more efficient than federal. However, a state will only
consider the costs and benefits that accrue to its own citizens, thus if spillovers of benefits or costs to other states exist, there can be a role for the
federal government. In particular, if there are cost spillovers, the coastal state will provide too much G-i.e., under develop the OCS; if there are
benefit spillovers, the state will provide too little G-i.e., overdevelop.
Solvency – Jurisdiction
Best oil production happens at the state level – industry connections and
jurisdiction prove
Fox ’11 (Eric, Investopedia, MSNBC, “Bubbling crude: America's top 6 oil-producing states,”
6/8, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43085246/ns/business-oil_and_energy/t/bubbling-crudeamericas-top-oil-producing-states/#.UB1LzMhWpJU, TGA)
Crude oil production from the United States averaged approximately 5.48 million barrels per day in January 2011, much less than
the country consumes. The bulk of this domestic production comes from just a handful of states where the oil and
gas industry has been operating for generations. Here are the six states that produce the greatest amount of crude oil. 1.
Texas It's no surprise that Texas is the largest domestic producer of oil as this state has had a culture
associated with the oil business for more than century. Many historians trace the beginning of the modern oil era to the famous
Spindletop well drilled near Beaumont, Texas in 1901. The well blew out and reportedly produced 100,000 barrels of oil per day until it was
brought under control nine days later. In January 2011, crude oil production in Texas averaged 962,338 barrels a day. Like other areas of the
United States, this production peaked a generation ago and then entered a long-term decline. Since 2004, however, production leveled out and has
been stable since that time. The oil industry is currently focused on increasing Texas oil development
from the Eagle Ford Shale, the northern part of the Barnett Shale, and the Permian Basin. 2. Alaska Alaska is the second-largest oil producer of
crude oil with average daily production of 670,553 barrels in February 2011 (includes natural gas liquids). The state was a relatively minor source
of domestic production of crude oil until the discovery of oil in the North Slope in the 1970s. Production from the Prudhoe Bay field and other
fields began in 1977 and at one point comprised 25% of all U.S. oil production. Unfortunately for the United States, Alaskan oil production has
been in a steep decline since the late 1980s when production peaked at over two million barrels per day. This will probably continue declining as
the industry is focused on other areas that are easier to develop. 3. California Some might find it odd that California is the third largest producer
of crude oil in the United States, as this state has a reputation as ground zero for the environmental movement. Things were much different in the
middle of the 19th century, as the oil industry in California began with operators building tunnels or pits to get at the oil, much of which seeped to
the surface. The first successful oil wells were drilled in the 1860s and the industry hasn't stopped since. In December 2010, California reported
average daily production of 536,800 barrels of oil from both onshore and offshore areas. This doesn't include offshore production from the Outer
Continental Shelf that is regulated by the federal government, which typically averages about 35,000 barrels per day. The state's largest oil field is
the Midway Sunset field which averaged production of 85,100 barrels per day in December 2010. 4. North Dakota North
Dakota has
the honor of being the fastest-growing state oil producer over the last few years, as it has seen oil production
increase from less than 100,000 barrels per day in 2005 to the 348,367 barrels per day reported in February 2011. This amazing growth has been
powered by the development of the Bakken formation in the Williston Basin and other areas of the state. There are currently 172 rigs drilling in
North Dakota with 95% of these rigs targeting the Bakken and Three Forks formation. Although there is considerable debate on where oil
production from the Bakken will peak, one might want to look at the capital plans of the pipeline companies. These operators are planning on
increasing takeaway capacity in the area to one million barrels per day by 2015. 5. New Mexico New Mexico is the fifth-largest domestic oil
producer with average daily production of 177,815 barrels per day in 2010. The state is a relative newcomer to the business compared to other top
producers, with the first successful commercial oil well drilled in 1924. 6. Oklahoma Oklahoma comes in sixth in oil production, with average
daily production of 147,341 barrels per day in 2010 (through November). The oil industry in Oklahoma also has a long and storied history with
the Nellie Johnstone No. 1 well near Bartlesville kicking off the beginning of a boom in 1897. Oklahoma was also where Jean Paul Getty got his
start in the oil business in the early 1900s. Getty later went on to run the Getty Oil Company and became one of the first billionaires in the United
States. The bottom line A
handful of states are responsible for much of the domestic oil production
in the United States, and these states have a long association with the oil industry, dating
back more than a century. For as long as the world continues to heavily rely on oil (and for as
long as oil lies beneath U.S. soil) these six states can count on big profits from the oil fields for years to come.
States control drilling issues
Ajc.com 07/17/08
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/printedition/2008/07/17/gased.html?cxntlid=inform_artr
States ought to be able to determine for themselves whether or not to allow offshore drilling. As a
coastal state, Georgia's voice can weigh heavily in the national debate over energy policy.
While we do not know what resources are readily available off Georgia's coast, if any, we must join with other coastal states in advocating for
increased access to offshore drilling. Each
state should be free to drill or not drill. States that allow coastal
energy production should also receive a fair share in the revenues generated from the offshore
leases.
AT: Perm
States solve best alone – federal involvement is worse
Mark Green 11/26/12 (16 years as national editorial writer in the Washington Bureau of The
Oklahoman newspaper. In all, he has been a reporter and editor for more than 30 years, including
six years as sports editor at The Washington Times. “Turning Aside the ‘Regulatory Flood’”
http://energytomorrow.org/blog/turning-aside-the-regulatory-flood/#/type/all)
No, when you have the winning Powerball ticket, you redeem it. To do so we
need sensible, efficient regulation and regulatory
systems, led by experienced and competent state-level regulators. We don’t need federal regulatory
layers that merely duplicate what the states already are doing, with professionalism and
efficiency .¶ Likewise, we need a fair tax system that doesn’t single out an industry or a handful of companies. Rather, we need one that
encourages investment and development while assuring that U.S. energy firms can go up against global
competitors.¶ This is the path to more domestic oil and natural gas – the president’s goal – and the desire
of the American people.
state input good but perm fails -cooperation weakens the ability of states to be
heard
Amy McIntire, civil litigation associate at Chaffe McCall LLP, Notre Dame Law, 2/24/14, “OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ON
THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF: THE UPHILL BATTLE FOR STATE INPUT INTO FEDERAL POLICY” Texas Journal of Oil, Gas,
and Energy Law, http://tjogel.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/10_Volume-9-Issue-1-McIntire_Final.pdf //RX
In light of the lucrative nature of offshore drilling and the serious environmental risks and hazards associated with the OCS development
business, coastal
states have strong incentives to seek some control in the decision making
process of OCS leasing. Although the federal government has jurisdiction over all submerged lands three miles beyond the coastline
and controls the OCS leasing process, lawmakers recognized the benefits of state input.142 Consequently,
mechanisms for some state input in offshore drilling procedures were drafted into the major statutes that govern the OCS leasing process. The
drafters of CZMA explicitly recognized the need for cooperative efforts between states and the
federal government and took measures to ensure that federal OCS development activities
were compatible with each state’s OCSLA also provides states with the opportunity to submit recommendations
regarding proposed lease sales, and the plain language of the statute dictates than any “reasonable” recommendation must be accepted by the
federal government.144 Finally, NEPA’s incorporation into the OCS leasing process was intended to protect states from incurring the type of
environmental damage that is often associated with offshore drilling.145 Combined, these three statutes
appear to confer upon
states the opportunity for meaningful input in the OCS leasing process. In execution, however,
they arguably have failed . Both agency and judicial treatment of these laws have weakened the
ability of states to be heard, and coastal states have consequently been left with almost no
effective means for input in the leasing process.
Solvency – Devolution Module
Devolution to the states solves better-federal government limit production
potential
Nicolas Loris, Fellow of economic policy at Heritage, 5/7/14, “Federal Regulations and Federal Ownership Limit Oil Production
Potential,” Heritage, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/05/federal-regulations-and-federal-ownership-limit-oil-production-potential
//RX
Production of crude oil in the United States is up to 8.36 million barrels per day—the highest since January 1988.[1] The increased supply of oil
has widespread economic benefits, but a new Congressional Research Service report shows that when the numbers are broken down by
ownership it becomes clear that the situation could be even better. Although oil production overall has almost doubled in less than six years,
production continues to fall on federally owned land areas.[2] A more streamlined and efficient environmental review and permitting process
would be welcome, but the
best solution would be for Congress to devolve energy production
decisions regarding federal lands to the states. Offshore Drilling Discouraged After oil production reached a peak in
barrels produced offshore per day in 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill resulted in a blanket moratorium on all new offshore projects and the
cancellations of several existing leases. There
may no longer be a literal ban on offshore drilling, but
government policies still in effect have the same consequences. It can take anywhere from
five to 10 years for a company to move from approval to production, with no guarantee
that the permit obtained will lead to successful crude oil production. Much of this is due to
copious amounts of regulation and red tape .[3] The time and labor needed to see this process through dwarfs the
amount of time it takes other businesses to expand and grow in almost any other industry. On top of the inefficient and onerous regulatory
process, the oil industry has access to just 15 percent of available offshore areas.[4] Inaccessibility and unnecessary regulations inhibit economic
growth in various parts of the country off the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts. A study recently published by the American Petroleum Institute
and the National Ocean Industries Association shows that opening up offshore areas for drilling in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf—just one
region where offshore drilling is possible but not permitted—would create 280,000 jobs in that region alone.[5] Drilling on Federal Lands Faces
Bureaucratic Hurdles In addition to a continued decline in offshore drilling, onshore drilling on federal land has increased at only a fraction of the
rate as on non-federal lands. Almost all of the benefits from fracking thus far have occurred on non-federal land. While production on state and
private lands has grown by almost 65 percent in the past seven years, production on federal lands has increased by about 27 percent, less than half
the rate.[6] In total, federal lands now account for only 5 percent of oil production.[7] Daily federal onshore oil production is equal to about onethird of what is produced every day at the Bakken formation alone.[8] Part of the discrepancy is that many of the big oil shale reserves lie on nonfederal lands; however, a major reason that production on federal land has lagged behind is not a matter of economic viability or location but
rather inefficiencies on the part of the federal government. As with offshore drilling, long processes resulting from government inefficiencies
create an unnecessary burden on industry. In some cases, waiting for a federal permit can take 10 times longer than it does at the state level. In
2013, the average wait for the federal government to approve a request was 194 days,[9] compared to 27 days in North Dakota, 11 days in Texas,
and 45 in Pennsylvania.[10] Federal ownership disincentivizes production on non-federal lands located adjacent to or interspersed with federal
lands. Since production on federal lands is much more difficult, drilling may make economic sense only if a company has access to both the
federal land and the non-federal land. Open Access and Grant States Control Excessive regulations and bureaucratic inefficiencies have stymied
oil production and prevented the full effects of the energy boom. Opening
up the rest of the Outer Continental
Shelf to exploration and oil production would allow this to occur. As the experience with federal lands that
are technically open to exploration and drilling has indicated, having access is only one of the changes that must be
made. Another step the federal government needs to take to allow for growth is to reduce
time-consuming and costly regulations by streamlining the process. The efficiency that has
been demonstrated at the state level shows that it is possible to quickly process a high
volume of requests. In fact, one of the primary reasons shale oil and shale gas production has
been so successful both economically and environmentally is state management. State
regulators and private land owners have decentralized knowledge and the proper
incentives to promote economic growth while protecting their environment. They are the ones who
have the most to gain when the management of natural resources and economic activity is handled properly, and they also have the most to lose if
those are mismanaged. The federal government owns nearly one-third of U.S. territory. Congress should consider privatizing some of that land,
but in the meantime, transferring
the management of federal lands to state regulators would
encourage energy resource development on the federal estate while maintaining strong
environmental protections. The Federal Land Freedom Act of 2013 (S. 1233 and H.R. 2511), introduced by Senator James Inhofe
(R–OK) and Representative Diane Black (R–TN), would do just that by allocating more authority to the states to control their energy future.[11]
Increasing Energy Opportunities Due to a lack of access and excessive federal regulation, the full effects and potential of America’s energy boom
have yet to be felt. Streamlining
and simplifying the approval process by devolving decisions to
the states, along with opening up more regions for development, would allow the U.S. to harness its full energy
potential.
Status quo efforts don’t give enough state ownership-only the CP solves
Robin Craig, University of Utah Law Prof, Summer 1993, “Treating Offshore Submerged Lands as Public Lands: A Historical
Perspective,” Public Law and Resources Law Review, http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1365&context=plrlr //RX
This article suggests that efficiency would be enhanced if states owned the OCS lands off their coasts.
They would then take into account all of the benefits and costs of leasing and, as long as they acted to maximize the welfare of their citizens,
would lease the efficient amount of land. There are no "energy security" benefits from increasing OCS oil and gas production, so
there are
no national benefits from development that the states would not consider. In addition, any national
benefits from not developing can be internalized through the conditional grants of the CZMA or a similar program. Revenue-sharing
and allowing states and environmental groups to bid for leases are both inferior to stateownership but better than the status quo. Both might be more feasible in the short run given the
amount of revenues that OCS leases bring the federal Treasury and the persistent federal
budget deficit. Nonetheless, a "grandfathering" plan that leaves existing, producing leases in the hands of the federal
government and gives  responsibility for new leases to the states does not appear to be out of
the realm of possibility. Historically, it has been acts of Congress that have determined ownership of the submerged lands, not the
Constitution.4 Moreover, some areas may currently be drains on the federal government more than revenue-raisers. For example, many oil
companies are losing interest in California despite the great oil and gas potential there. In addition, in July 1990, President Bush placed several
OCS areas under a leasing moratorium. The MMS estimates that the lost revenues from the first year of the moratorium amounted to $2 billion. 1
In addition, because of drilling moratoria, the government is discussing buying back some existing leases. The MMS estimates the cost of buying
back 73 leases off the Florida coast south of Naples at between $270 and $497 million.42 Policymakers
should seriously
consider state-ownership as a viable alternative to the present system.
Federal bureaucracy inhibits success – state action solves better
Loris 5/7. Nicolas D. Loris, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute
for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. May 7, 2014. Federal Regulations and
Federal Ownership Limit Oil Production Potential. The Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/05/federal-regulations-and-federal-ownershiplimit-oil-production-potential //NM
Excessive regulations and bureaucratic inefficiencies have stymied oil production and prevented
the full effects of the energy boom. Opening up the rest of the Outer Continental Shelf to exploration and oil production would allow this to
occur.¶
As the experience with federal lands that are technically open to exploration and
drilling has indicated, having access is only one of the changes that must be made. Another step the
federal government needs to take to allow for growth is to reduce time-consuming and
costly regulations by streamlining the process. The efficiency that has been demonstrated
at the state level shows that it is possible to quickly process a high volume of requests.¶ In fact,
one of the primary reasons shale oil and shale gas production has been so successful both economically and environmentally is state management.
State regulators and private land owners have decentralized knowledge and the proper
incentives to promote economic growth while protecting their environment. They are the ones who have
the most to gain when the management of natural resources and economic activity is
handled properly, and theyalso have the most to lose if those are mismanaged.¶ The federal
government owns nearly one-third of U.S. territory. Congress should consider privatizing some of that land,
but in the meantime, transferring the management of federal lands to state regulators
would encourage energy resource development on the federal estate while maintaining strong environmental
protections. The Federal Land Freedom Act of 2013 (S. 1233 and H.R. 2511), introduced by Senator James Inhofe (R–OK) and Representative
Diane Black (R–TN), would do just that by allocating more authority to t
CASE
Sovlency
1NC – Solvency
No investment- oil companies cant make a profit post plan
Natural Resources Committee Democratic Staff, 9-8-11, “PROFITS AND PINK
SLIPS,”
http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/sites/democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/files/201
1-09-08_RPT_OilProfitsPinkSlips.pdf
The oil and gas industry argues that the tax breaks they enjoy encourage them to develop
more oil and gas deposits, which lead to increased oil and gas supplies and lower energy prices.¶ 14¶
The ¶ Natural Resources Committee Democratic Staff’s analysis suggests otherwise for two primary ¶ reasons: ¶ 1. Depending on
the reservoir and the physical characteristics of the hydrocarbon, the cost ¶ of producing oil can range from as little
as $2 per barrel in the Middle East to more than ¶ $15 per barrel in some fields in the United States,
according to the Energy Information ¶ Administration. Bringing once-expensive deepwater Gulf of Mexico oil into
production ¶ can now be done for less than $10 per barrel.¶ 15¶ The profit incentive to explore
and ¶ produce new supplies for this lucrative market dwarfs any marginal benefit that
existing ¶ federal tax breaks for oil exploration or production could provide. As President George ¶
W. Bush said in 2005, “With oil at more than $50 a barrel, by the way, energy companies ¶ do not need taxpayers'-funded incentives to explore
for oil and gas." ¶ 2. In recent years, higher
oil company profits have increasingly been redirected into ¶
dividends and stock purchases, not exploration. Among the Big 5 oil companies, less than¶ 10 percent of
profits are reinvested into exploration of new oil deposits.¶ 16¶ Net profits ¶ directed towards dividends and
stock repurchases for the Big 5 oil companies were 58 ¶ percent in 2005, 73 percent in 2006, and 72 percent in 2007, 71 percent in 2008, and 89
¶
percent in 2009. Dumping
profits into stock buybacks drives up share prices for ¶ remaining shareholders by concentrating
ownership, and, in the process, acts to increase ¶ the values of stock options for executives. It also reduces the amount of capital
available ¶ for new exploration, improvements in drilling safety, and for other purposes (see below). ¶
Current tax treatment does not incentivize oil and gas companies to diversify into clean energy ¶ alternatives. While some oil companies tout their
commitment to research into alternative energy ¶ resources, a review of actual corporate investments in research and development (R&D) reveal a
¶ business model which appears wildly averseto innovation. While companies in high-tech sectors ¶ like pharmaceuticals and semiconductors
regularly invest 15-18 percent of their revenues in ¶ R&D, U.S. energy companies invest less than one quarter of one percent of revenues in
R&D.17¶ Viable new substitutes for oil are a clear threat to the industry, as they would act to reduce the ¶ value of the oil industry's reserves,
refineries, pipelines, and other infrastructure. ¶ Repealing the oil industry’s tax subsidies will not impact gas prices for American consumers. ¶
Oil, the main input and primary cost driver for gasoline, is traded in a global market and oil ¶ companies get paid the going market price for the
oil they produce. On the oil market, there is no ¶ difference between an unsubsidized barrel of oil that costs $10 to produce and a subsidized barrel
¶ that costs $9.50 to produce. Each barrel will sell for the same price, currently more than $90 on ¶ the oil market. Oil companies that receive tax
subsidies pass on that benefit to their shareholders, ¶ not to consumers.
And, Confusion and uncertainty over environmental restrictions prevent
drilling
Lauren Hunt Brogdon 2012 (J.D. 2012, Columbia Law School, “A New Horizon?: The Need
for Improved¶ Regulation of Deepwater Drilling” 37 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 291 2012)
Confusion and uncertainty created by the complexity of the¶ NEPA process on the Outer Continental
Shelf may have¶ contributed to the lack of preparedness for the spill. Prior to the¶ accident, MMS employed a
"tiering" process, encouraged by NEPA¶ regulations, under which it covered "general matters in broader¶
environmental impact statements ... with subsequent narrower¶ statements or environmental analyses ... incorporating by¶
reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the¶ issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared."¶ 135 ¶ When¶ tiering
occurs, "it
is important that decisionmakers are made aware¶ of the relevant portions of the
previous NEPA environmental¶ analysis to inform their subsequent decisions," but MMS's
tiered¶ analysis was not sufficiently specific to the "particular activity,¶ geography, and impacts" of
the Outer Continental Shelf, as¶ required by the tiering process. 1" Reforms to this process on the Outer Continental
Shelf would undoubtedly reduce the level of ¶ complexity and ambiguity that characterized NEPA review for the¶ Macondo well.
States block any potential investors
Romm ’08 (Dr. Joseph Romm, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he
oversees the blog ClimateProgress.org, 8-6-08, “We Tried Offshore Drilling and Oil Prices
Doubled,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/we-tried-offshoredrillin_b_117263.html)
The federal moratorium only blocks another 18 billion barrels of oil from being developed.
But, as you can see, most of that is off of California, which has bipartisan opposition to drilling from
Republican Governor Schwarzenegger -- who, unlike McCain, seems serious about his commitment to greenhouse gas reduction -- and the
Democratic legislature, which remembers all too well the devastating 1969 oil spill off the coast of
Santa Barbara. Indeed, Karen Bass, the newly appointed speaker of the State Assembly, said, "The idea of increasing
offshore drilling off the coast of California I think is absurd, and I can't even imagine we
would entertain that." Why would they, given the risk to their beautiful coasts and their commitment to reduce statewide greenhouse
gas emissions 80% by midcentury?¶ So that only leaves about 8 billion barrels, which is about what the
world uses in three months. Not bloody much. And that assumes every other state, including Florida, goes
aggressively with offshore drilling, which is exceedingly unlikely. Indeed, the military is
unlikely to let Virginia drill offshore because they use that area for Naval training. Most
other Atlantic Coast states don't have a pipeline delivery infrastructure, which makes them
far less attractive to the oil industry. Why would you drill off the coast of Maine when you would have to get that oil to a
distant refinery? And Senator Martinez (R-FL) is dead set against drilling off Florida's coast.¶ So in
the real world, ending the federal moratorium on coastal drilling might add 50,000 barrels
of oil a day some time after 2020. That is so tiny that it certainly can't have any impact on
oil prices ever, psychological or not. That is so tiny that I agree with Sen. Obama that we should be open to a compromise in
which progressives give up that nothing in return for a genuine effort to jumpstart the transition to a clean energy economy.
Drilling fails –delays and localities
CBO, Congressional Budget Office, internally cites Energy Information Administration studies, “Potential Budgetary Effects of Immediately
Opening Most Federal Lands to
Oil and Gas Leasing”, CBO, August 20
//RX
12, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/08-09-12_Oil-and-Gas_Leasing.pdf/
CBO used EIA’s estimates of the poten- tial for new areas to produce oil or gas
after 2022. EIA expects that any initial production from newly opened areas in the Atlantic,
Pacific, and eastern Gulf of Mexico would be far less than is produced by current
operations in the Gulf of Mexico (see Figure 2). In its Annual Energy Outlook 2011, EIA estimated that if leasing commenced in those OCS
regions by 2023, production through 2035 would amount to around 0.35 billion BOE—or about 3
percent of the 13.5 billion BOE that the agency pro- jected would be produced from federal
leases in the Gulf of Mexico over that 13-year period.17 EIA’s estimates reflect its assumption that “local
infrastructure issues and other potential nonfederal impediments are resolved.”18 In CBO’s view, such factors
probably would slow or limit production, as they sometimes have in the past. The federal government has spent
For this analysis,
about $1.5 billion to compensate firms for leases that were canceled or relinquished because of state or local concerns about oil and gas development off the coasts of
localities in California have “enacted
ordinances that either bar the construction of onshore support facilities for offshore oil and
gas development or subject the approval of such facil- ities to a vote by local citizens.”20 Any
development in the Atlantic OCS would involve siting and building new pipelines and
related onshore facilities, which would require approval by state and local authorities.
Other technical complications and economic factors add to the uncertainty surrounding
forecasts of production in new areas of the OCS. DOI’s resource assessments sug- gest that much of the
undiscovered oil in the eastern Gulf of Mexico is located in ultradeep water—water that is more than 2,400 meters (about 7,900
feet) deep—where few leases can be brought into production in any year because of the cost and
complexity of their develop- ment.21 Other factors could slow production in new areas, including the need for exploratory drilling and the
California, North Carolina, and Florida and in Bristol Bay in Alaska.19 According to DOI, 24
expectation that most of the fields will be relatively small.22 Historically, production facilities have been installed at a slower pace in the California OCS than in the
Gulf of Mexico.23
US already increasing Oil Production
Floyd Norris, 1-25-2014, chief financial correspondent for NYT, 1/25/2014, “U.S. Oil
Production Keeps Rising Beyond the Forecasts,” New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/business/us-oil-production-keeps-rising-beyond-theforecasts.html?_r=0
OIL production in the United States rose by a record 992,000 barrels a day in 2013, the
International Energy Agency estimated this week. “We keep raising our forecasts, and we
keep underestimating production,” said Lejla Alic, a Paris-based analyst with the agency.
The increase left United States production at 7.5 million barrels a day, with both November
and December production estimated to have been over eight million barrels a day.
American consumption of oil also rose last year, by 390,000 barrels a day, or 2.1 percent, to 18.9
million barrels a day. The agency increased its estimate of American oil use in the final quarter
of the year, although it lowered its estimate of the increase in some other countries, including
China. Over all, world consumption rose 1.4 percent, making 2013 the first year since 1999 that
the use of oil in the United States rose more rapidly than in the rest of the world. The agency
said that demand was strong in the petrochemical industry in the United States, which has
benefited from the fact that rising supply has left American crude oil prices lower than
those in many other countries. The agency estimated that demand for gasoline in the United
States rose as a result of increasing consumer confidence and more sales of sport utility vehicles.
Despite the 2013 increases, oil use in most developed countries remains well below the
levels of 2007, the last pre-recession year. The United States is estimated to have used 8.5
percent less oil in 2013 than it did in 2007, while demand is down by about 25 percent in
Italy and Spain, European countries that were hard hit by the euro area’s problems.
Germany stands out, with 2013 usage equal to that of 2007.
Restrictions aren’t the issue --- companies have open federal leases now
Steven Mufson, 10/22/12, Washington Post Staff Writer, “Study: 20 million acres of federal
oil, gas leases in Gulf of Mexico idle”,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-20-million-acres-of-federal-oil-gasleases-in-gulf-of-mexico-idle/2012/10/22/d764031a-1c47-11e2-9cd5b55c38388962_story.html>
Oil and natural gas companies are not exploring, developing or producing on more than 20
million acres of federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico, 40 percent of them owned by the five biggest private oil giants, according
to a study by the office of Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee. The study is the
latest salvo in a politicized election year battle over whether the Obama administration should be blamed for what Republican presidential
nominee Mitt Romney has called a slow pace of leasing or whether the oil industry owns more drilling leases than it can handle. The study found
that 131
oil and gas companies hold about 3,700 leases in the Gulf of Mexico that are not
undergoing exploration, development or production. BP has 2.5 million acres of idle leases
in the Gulf of Mexico, the report said. BP is followed by Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Shell, each of which
own 1.4 million to 1.5 million acres of idle leases. Markey’s study added that about half of the leases
have been idle for at least five years and that 80 percent of the idle leases were purchased for less than $300 an acre.
EXT - Not Profitable
New areas to drill don’t solve-companies just want the leases and won’t
actually drill
Gertz ’08 (Emily Gertz, a freelance journalist who covers the environment, science and
technology. She has written for Grist, Dwell magazine, Popular Mechanics online, Scientific
American online, and more, 9-12-08, “Can Offshore Drilling Really Make the U.S. Oil
Independent?,” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-offshore-drilling-makeus-independent)
Oil companies would commission their own more precise seismic surveys after they were
awarded leases, says Judy Penniman of the American Petroleum Institute, the industry's Washington, D.C.–based trade association,
and test drill the most promising oil deposits. If test drilling revealed recoverable oil reserves, she says that a
company would have to plunk down another $2 billion for an oil rig. But even if Congress were to lift its 16year ban on offshore drilling tomorrow, she agrees with the EIA that it would take at least five years before an oil
company awarded a lease could pump its first drop of oil.¶ What's more, industry experts say no matter
how much oil there may be offshore, only some of it will be "recoverable," that is, able to be removed at
a cost that's cheap enough to guarantee oil companies enough profit on their investment.
Current shortages of both oil rigs and skilled manpower to operate them could also
bottleneck such efforts.¶ According to Phyllis Martin, a senior EIA energy analyst, Atlantic and Pacific oil fields
tend to be smaller on average than those in the Gulf of Mexico, but it is just as costly to drill them,
making the economics of drilling these areas especially tough to justify.¶ In fact, oil companies have
yet to take advantage of the nearly 86 billion barrels of offshore oil in areas already
available for leasing and development. So why are they chomping at the drill bit to open up the moratorium waters and
survey them anew?¶ "Oil company stocks are valued in large part based on how much proved reserves they have," says Robert Kaufman, an
expert on world oil markets and director of Boston University's Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. Translation: just
having
more promising leases in hand would be worth billions of dollars.
Not economical to drill offshore even with land
Romm ’08 (Dr. Joseph Romm, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he
oversees the blog ClimateProgress.org, 8-6-08, “We Tried Offshore Drilling and Oil Prices
Doubled,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/we-tried-offshoredrillin_b_117263.html)
You may ask why Big Oil hasn't gotten around to the 34 billion barrels already available to
them offshore, given the staggering price for oil? The answer is pretty much the same reason why the EIA analyst
told me that ending the federal moratorium is "certainly not going to make a difference in the next 10 years": It ain't easy being nongreen off-shore.¶ As she explained, the constraints on offshore drilling have little to do with the
price of oil, but a lot to do with timing. Once the leases are available, it is a 5 to 10 years
before you get to exploratory drilling. There is a tremendous shortage of drilling rigs and
manpower. Plus, offshore drilling is so expensive, you don't want to make any mistakes. So you
spend do a lot of seismic analysis to minimize your chances of a dry well.¶ And it is probably another five or more years
from drilling your exploratory well to getting significant production from the area -- and
that assumes you didn't dig a dry well. If you did, then you are probably going to be even more cautious. And all that
assumes you have developed a pipeline infrastructure for delivering the oil. But again the
Atlantic Coast lacks such an infrastructure, so who knows how long it would take to get its oil?
They don’t have enough equipment or refining capacity
Center for American Progress, 9-15-08, “Ten Reasons Not to Expand Offshore Drilling,”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-toexpand-offshore-drilling/
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.”
7. There isn’t enough drilling equipment.¶ Due
EXT – confusion Blocks Investment
Not enough resources or expertise to sort through drilling paperwork
David Pettit and David Newman 2012 (David Pettit, a 1975 graduate of UCLA Law
School, is a Senior Attorney for¶ the Natural Resources Defense Council. He is an environmental
law litigator¶ who has been involved in the aftermath of the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon¶ oil spill.
David would like to thank Rebecca Wolitz, Yale University Law¶ School, J.D. expected 2012, for
her contributions to this piece.¶ f David Newman is an Oceans Program Attorney for the Natural
Resources¶ Defense Council, and has been involved in BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill¶ Litigation,
“Federal Public Law and the Future of¶ Oil and Gas Drilling on the Outer¶ Continental Shelf”
HeinOnline ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITYLAWREVIEW [Vol. 17:184)
It has been suggested that the
convergence of a large amount¶ of paperwork to review and a lack of
resources results in¶ ineffective oversight. Remedies for this problem, therefore,¶ include making important information of
relevance to the¶ overseeing agency easier to find.¶ [TIhe attention of the reviewer needs to be captured and ¶ focused on the salient issues.
Agencies are chronically¶ short of resources and face many demands on their time.¶ Unless they
understand the importance of their task in¶ the specific context, they may treat the review as a¶ matter of routine. Furthermore, reviewers
should not¶ face unnecessary barriers to identifying the most¶ important or questionable
elements of the analysis.¶ 140¶ Access to technological expertise for evaluating salient¶
information is also crucially important.1¶ 41 ¶ One easy step in this¶ direction would be for BOEMRE to clean up its nearly¶
impenetrable website.
EXT - States Block
states can block
Amy McIntire, civil litigation associate at Chaffe McCall LLP, Notre Dame Law, 2/24/14, “OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ON
THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF: THE UPHILL BATTLE FOR STATE INPUT INTO FEDERAL POLICY” Texas Journal of Oil, Gas,
and Energy Law, http://tjogel.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/10_Volume-9-Issue-1-McIntire_Final.pdf //RX
Additionally,
CZMA requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct an
activity that directly affects the coastal zone provide a certification that the plan is
consistent with the enforceable policies of an approved state coastal management plan. If the
state does not agree with the applicant’s certification, then no license or permit may be
granted by a federal agency unless the Secretary of Commerce provides a reasonable opportunity
for detailed comments from both the federal agency and the affected state and independently
determines that the proposed activity is consistent with the objectives of CZMA or is necessary in the interest of
national security.55
EXT – No Oil/Delay
Drilling fails-oil refineries
Xun Yao Chen , Boston U Econ and MBA, Puji Capital, commodities analyst, 1/23/ 14, “Must-know: Why the U.S. could hit a light crude
oil refining wall,” Market Realist, http://marketrealist.com/2014/01/must-know-u-s-hit-light-crude-oil-refining-wall/ //RX
While U.S. oil imports have been falling over the last few years, tanker companies such as Frontline Ltd. (FRO) and Nordic American Tanker
Ltd. (NAT) could benefit from a brighter outlook on U.S. oil imports in 2014. U.S.
oil production is definitely surging,
but refining capacity could be hitting a wall . The LLS and Brent price differential Louisiana Light Sweet crude (or
LLS) is a coastal-based benchmark that has tracked closely with imported crude price—the international benchmark, Brent crude. Until recently,
LLS has traded mostly at a premium because U.S. crude is of slightly higher quality than Brent or the international average and it’s closer to
domestic refiners. But this relationship started to collapse in August, when
LLS started to trade lower than Brent.
This change reflects a buildup of supply at the U.S. coast and suggests refiners can’t take as
much supply as they want. If this were driven by a temporary shutdown of a major refiners
of high-quality domestic oil, the discount of LLS price to Brent would likely narrow to zero
over time. On January 17, the spread stood at $4.47 a barrel. While it has narrowed further despite narrowing from $15.83 per barrel in
October and our last reported $7.70 per barrel for December 23, the consistent discount suggests that U.S. refineries
may have hit capacity to refine U.S. domestic oil. Citigroup’s head of commodities research, Ed Morse,
recently noted that the current volatility seen in the Brent-to-WTI and Brent-to-LLS crude
oil spreads is a sign that U.S. refining capacity for light sweet crude is being reached. Although
he noted there’s growing investment in capacity to refine further light sweet crude of approximately 700,000 barrels a day, that could take time.
On January 21, 2014, the IEA (International Energy Agency) also
cautioned that U.S. oil output growth could hit
a wall because of insufficient infrastructure capacity to take oil away and refine it. If U.S.
refiners are running out of capacity to refine domestic oil, then additional U.S. demand for
crude (including exports) would support crude oil imports. This could help crude tankers like Frontline Ltd.
(FRO), Nordic American Tanker Ltd. (NAT), Tsakos Energy Navigation Ltd. (TNP), and Teekay Tankers Ltd. (TNK). The Guggenheim
Shipping ETF (SEA) could also benefit until significantly more refining capacity is added.
Drilling fails- lack of infrastructure and workforce
Sebastian, journalist at Houston Chronicle and San Francisco Chronicle, citing Malcolm Forbes-Cable, Senior Management
Consultant at Wood Mackenzie, 6-28-13, “Deep-water drilling expansion will strain workforce, study says”, FuelFix,
Simone
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/06/28/deep-water-drilling-expansion-will-strain-workforce-study-says/ //RX
Global spending on deep-water wells will surge to $114 billion by 2022, compared to $43 billion last year,
creating a critical need for offshore rig workers, according to a new analysis by Wood Mackenzie. Deep-water
markets are expanding rapidly, the research and consulting firm notes, projecting a 150 percent jump in the number of exploration, appraisal and
development wells drilled by 2020. It also projects expansion of Arctic drilling by the end of the decade, though Arctic wells will remain a
fraction of all wells drilled — just three percent through 2022. “To
meet the forecasted well demand, the fleet will
require 95 additional deep-water rigs to be constructed between 2016 and 2022, representing $65 billion of
investment,” Malcolm Forbes-Cable, senior management consultant at Wood Mackenzie and author of the study, in a written statement. “This
will require the longest period of deep-water rig construction to date, representing a change for the deep-water sector from cyclical to sustained
growth.” The Future of Global Deepwater Markets report projects rig
contractors will need to expand their payrolls
by 37,000 workers over the next decade to meet demand for rigs. That’s an impossible
target to meet under the current rate of recruitment, Wood Mackenzie says. The analysis notes that deep-water
projects have become central to growth plans for many international oil companies, but that creates challenges for budget
constraints, risk management and human resources. “Deepwater has accounted for most of the discovered
volumes during this time, but this has not been without increasing technical and commercial challenges,” said Malcolm Forbes-Cable, Senior
Management Consultant at Wood Mackenzie and author of the study.
Drilling fails-delays and lack of oil
Tess Engebretson, Southern Environmental Law Institute, 5/29/14, “(Don't) Drill, Baby, Drill: Economic, Environmental, and
Military Conflicts Associated with Offshore Drilling, “The Energy Collective,
http://theenergycollective.com/cleanenergyleadershipinstitute/389926/dont-drill-baby-drill-economic-environmental-and-military-conf/ //RX
A 2011 Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management study found that there is less than two
months supply of oil, at current rates of consumption, in the Mid- and South Atlantic
combined. This crude oil must be refined into usable fuel, requiring significant infrastructure development in areas along the coast. Due
to infrastructure requirements, access to the small oil supply remains years away. These
refineries and pipelines emit significant amounts of oil and fumes daily, polluting the surrounding air and water.
EXT – No Oil
Status quo represents all necessary exploration – any further drilling would
be a drop in the bucket
Savitz 13. Jacqueline Savitz, Vice President for U.S. Oceans, Oceana Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources. October 1, 2013. “Written Testimony of Jacqueline Savitz. Full
Committee Hearing: To Consider the Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement”. Oceana –
Protecting the World’s Oceans. //NM
expansion of offshore drilling is unnecessary and dangerous, and we haven’t yet fully addressed
the risks. The federal government’s most recent Five-Year Plan allows access to more than 75% of
estimated undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources on the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf. At the same time, the oil and gas industry is sitting on a large number of nonproducing leases in federal waters. According to a July 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior report, oil and gas
companies hold almost 6,000 active leases in the Gulf, 82% of which are non-producing
leases. This represents more than ample opportunity for exploration and development and
certainly more than we would get by expanding drilling to the transboundary area. Additionally, even if all of the oil available in
the transboundary area were to be extracted and the U.S. recovered the entirety of the reserve, this
amount would be less than one-half percent of the total amount of technically recoverable oil currently
The proposed
available in the Gulf of Mexico (specifically, 0.37%). Couple this with the fact that our continued reliance on fossil fuels is exacerbating global
climate change and it is hard to find
there is so little benefit for us in return.
the logic in expanding offshore drilling to the transboundary area when
Even opening all domestic offshore areas would not make the US energy
independent
Oceana 12. The Three Myths of Offshore Drilling. Oceana – Protecting the World’s Oceans –
leading international organization for ocean conservation, Senate Committee.
http://oceana.org/es/our-work/climate-energy/offshore-drilling/learn-act/the-three-myths-ofoffshore-drilling //NM
The only way to become truly energy independent is to
end our addiction to oil. The DOE estimates that even if we opened all offshore areas to
drilling, the U.S. would still rely on imports for about 58% of its oil supply. The United States simply
does not have enough domestic oil to truly reduce its dependence on imports, much less to fulfill its
demand. The best way to eliminate foreign oil dependence is to eliminate dependence on oil
altogether by developing alternative sources, rapidly switching to plug-in and electric vehicles and phasing out oil consumption in other portions of our
Myth 3: Offshore drilling will make the U.S. energy independent.
economy like home heating and electricity generation. For more information on how the U.S. can phase out the need for oil, see Oceana's report Breaking the Habit.
Only 6-9 months worth of recoverable oil in the Atlantic Shelf – most recent
report
BOEM 14. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Assessment of Undiscovered Technically
Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf, 2014 Update. //NM
Using a geologic play-based assessment methodology, the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management estimated a
mean of 4.72 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and a mean of 37.51 trillion
cubic feet of undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf of the United States. ¶ Introduction¶ This
2014 report summarizes the results of an update to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) 2011 Assessment of Undiscovered
Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. Relevant
data and information
available as of December 2013 are considered for this assessment update. The area assessed
comprises the portion of the submerged seabed within the 200 nautical mile U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) whose mineral resources are subject to federal jurisdiction.¶ BOEM has
assessed ten geologic plays within the Atlantic OCS Region (Figure 1), including nine conceptual plays where there is little or no specific
information available, and one established play where hydrocarbon accumulations are known to exist. Water depths in these plays range from less
than 100 ft. to over 10,000 ft. Drill depths in these plays are estimated to range between 7,000 and 30,000 ft below the sea floor.
Offshore drilling will not provide enough oil to affect any change
CAP 8. September 15, 2008. Center for American Progress, an independent nonpartisan
educational institution . Ten Reasons Not to Expand Offshore Drilling
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-to-expandoffshore-drilling/ //NM
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 supplydemand 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.”
1.
No long term solvency - wells need replaced too often
Marin Katusa, 6-27-2014,Chief Energy Investment Strategist, Senior Editor, Mathmatician,
6/27/2014, “US #1 in Oil: So Why Isn’t Gasoline $0.80 per Gallon?” Casey Research,
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/us-1-in-oil-so-why-isnt-gasoline-0.80-per-gallon
As the old wells begin to deplete, they need to be replaced by unconventional wells with
horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Even though these new wells provide an initial
burst of production, they decline very quickly. That means you need to drill even more
wells just to keep up—and the vicious cycle continues. The costs, as you can imagine, are
forbiddingly high. Even in known oil-rich regions like the Bakken and Eagle Ford, the all-in cost
of extracting a barrel of oil from the ground can cost as much as US$75 per barrel (for
comparison, Saudi Arabia can produce oil for as low as US$1 per barrel). To put it in simple
terms: cheap oil in North America is a thing of the past. So, the US produces expensive oil
and relies on imports of even more expensive oil. And since the refiners need to make money
as well, this means higher prices at the pumps. Who loses? The US consumer, of course.
offshore drilling doesn’t solve-delays, little oil, too much demand
Weiss ’08 (Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for
American Progress, 1-3-08, “Time to Diversify Energy Resources as Oil Hits $100 a Barrel,”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/01/03/3846/time-to-diversify-energyresources-as-oil-hits-100-a-barrel/)
All of these factors are likely to continue throughout in 2008. Yet in the wake of these near record prices, oil
industry allies are likely to
haul out the lobbying equivalent of a Christmas fruit cake. They will once again push for more oil drilling off U.S.
coastal areas and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. These tired proposals have been rejected time
and again because they would do little to reduce the price of oil in the short run or offset higher
demand in the long run.¶ First off, additional offshore oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, or
off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, would not produce any oil for five to seven years. It would
take at least 10 years to produce any oil from the Arctic. Such plans will not reduce the spot
market price for oil. In fact, we already tried this and it failed to reduce prices. In December 2006
Congress and President Bush opened new areas to drilling off the Florida Coast when the price of oil was $62 per barrel. The price is one-third
higher today.¶ Second, oil
companies hold over 4,000 undeveloped leases in the western Gulf of
Mexico. If oil companies want to increase oil supplies, it would be much faster to develop
these leases rather than plod through the laborious process to get Congress to approve
offshore drilling in currently protected places. Interestingly, the Big Five oil companies—BP plc, Chevron Corp.,
Conoco Phillips Inc., ExxonMobil Corp., and Royal Dutch Shell plc—have been spending a huge amount of their half trillion dollars in recent
profits buying back their own stock. Perhaps they should invest some of their record profits in developing these leases before they greedily ask
for access to more protected places.¶ Most importantly, 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, the United States does not possess enough
oil to significantly offset our growing demand.
EXT – No Oil – Takes out Prices Advantage
Much offshore oil isn’t recoverable – even by 2030 drilling will not affect
prices
Gertz 8. Emily Gertz, Energy and Sustainability Writer , September 12, 2008, Can Offshore
Drilling Really Make the U.S. Oil Independent? Even if U.S. energy policy goes "drill baby
drill," there will be no escape from the vicissitudes of the global oil market, Scientific American,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-offshore-drilling-make-us-independent/ //NM
say no matter how much oil there may be offshore, only some of it
will be "recoverable," that is, able to be removed at a cost that's cheap enough to guarantee
oil companies enough profit on their investment. Current shortages of both oil rigs and skilled
manpower to operate them could also bottleneck such efforts.¶ ¶ According to Phyllis Martin, a senior EIA
energy analyst, Atlantic and Pacific oil fields tend to be smaller on average than those in the Gulf of Mexico,
but it is just as costly to drill them, making the economics of drilling these areas especially
tough to justify.¶ ¶ In fact, oil companies have yet to take advantage of the nearly 86 billion
barrels of offshore oil in areas already available for leasing and development. So why are they
¶
What's more, industry experts
chomping at the drill bit to open up the moratorium waters and survey them anew?¶ ¶ "Oil company stocks are valued in large part based on how
much proved reserves they have," says Robert Kaufman, an expert on world oil markets and director of Boston University's Center for Energy
and Environmental Studies. Translation: just having more promising leases in hand would be worth billions of dollars. ¶ ¶ So are promises of U.S.
oil independence real—or rhetoric? The
issue is not whether the U.S. can significantly reduce its reliance
on oil imports with domestic, offshore oil, say both Kaufman and Nathan, but whether there is enough
that is recoverable to significantly lower the price of a barrel of oil on the global market.¶ ¶
Even by 2030, offshore drilling would not have a significant impact on oil prices, according to
Martin, because oil prices are determined on the global market. "The amount of total production anticipated—
around 200,000 barrels a day—would be less than 1 percent of the total projected international consumption."
offshore drilling doesn’t solve prices or independence-not enough oil, world
market, imports down now
Weiss ’11 (Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for
American Progress, 1-11-11, “Big Oil Sings the Same Old Song,”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2011/01/11/8924/big-oil-sings-the-sameold-song/)
There are three major problems with these policies beyond their environmental concerns. First, expanded
drilling can never
address our imbalance between domestic oil production and consumption. The United States has only
2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, but it consumes more than 20 percent of the world’s oil.
President Barack Obama noted last year that drilling expansion is not the solution to America’s energy challenges, explaining, “We have less than
2 percent of the world’s oil reserves; we consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil. … drilling alone can’t
come close to
meeting our long-term energy needs.Ӧ Second, an increase in U.S. oil production will make little
or no difference in the world oil price or what Americans pay at the gas pump. Environment & Energy Daily (subscription
required) recently reported that Ken Green, resident scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, noted
that crude oil is a global commodity whose price will be unaffected by an increase in U.S.
production.¶ “The world price is the world price. Even if we were producing 100 percent of
our oil," Green said, if prices increase because of a shortage in China or India, "our price would go up to the same thing.” " We probably
couldn’t produce enough to affect the world price of oil," he added. "People don’t understand that."¶
Nonetheless, Green expects some politicians to exploit higher oil prices to boost Big Oil’s claim on fragile lands and coastal waters. “We’re
likely to see a replay of the McCain-Palin ‘drill, baby, drill,’ drill here, drill now. It will probably be a cause celebre for the tea party.”¶ Finally,
this Big Oil coastal grab ignores several important Energy Information Administration, or EIA, findings. One of these findings is that more
than four out of five barrels of oil off the coasts in the lower 48 states are already available
for development. EIA determined that “the OCS areas that were until recently under moratoria in the
Atlantic, Pacific, and Eastern/Central Gulf of Mexico are estimated to hold roughly 20 percent (18 billion barrels) of
the total OCS technically recoverable oil.” Most of the oil offshore can be developed now without risking oil blowouts off
the Atlantic, Pacific, or Florida Gulf coasts.¶ The recent EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2011 also finds little need to hurry to begin drilling without
precautions as API and its allies wish to do. It predicts that oil
imports will “fall due to increased domestic
production—including biofuels—and greater fuel efficiency.” This includes nearly a 20
percent reduction in imports from OPEC nations from 2010 to 2020 (table 146).¶ In fact, the outlook
estimates that the percentage increase in domestic liquid fuel production will be equal to the
percent increase in oil demand between 2010 and 2015, and the percent increase in
production will be twice as much as the percent increase of demand by 2020. (see chart) The EIA
further assumes a delay in the expansion of offshore production. Its assumptions include “pushing out the start of production for a number of
projects as a result of the six-month drilling moratoria, and delaying Atlantic and Pacific off shore leasing beyond 2017.”
offshore drilling doesn’t solve prices or dependence-not enough oil, rising
global demand
Danson ’09 (TED DANSON, a longtime ocean activist and a member of the Board of
Directors of Oceana, 2-11-09, “OFFSHORE DRILLING:¶ ENVIRONMENTAL AND¶
COMMERCIAL PERSPECTIVES¶ OVERSIGHT HEARING¶ before the¶ COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES¶ U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg47302/html/CHRG-111hhrg47302.htm)
Offshore Drilling Provides No Real Relief from High Gasoline Prices ¶ and Will Not
Create Energy Independence.¶ The U.S. Energy Information Agency has found that at peak ¶ production in
2025 increased drilling offshore would produce 220,000 ¶ barrels a day, which would
account for less than 1 percent of current ¶ energy demand in the United States. As the recent drop in oil
prices ¶ demonstrates, global demand for oil drives the global price and since ¶ the market for oil is
truly global--oil from the United States is sold ¶ all over the world and increased demand from
countries like China and ¶ India will have a greater effect on the price of oil than the ¶ availability of
B.
oil from the OCS.
not enough offshore oil to affect prices
Gatti ’10 (Dan Gatti, an environmental policy analyst at Environment America, 5-4-10, “In
defense of a moratorium on offshore oil drilling,” http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezraklein/2010/05/in_defense_of_a_moratorium_on.html)
1) An
expansion of offshore drilling will not significantly reduce the amount of oil the
United States imports, from Nigeria or Saudi Arabia or from anywhere else. The EIA estimates that domestic production
will increase by only a trivial figure as a result of new drilling offshore -- a 1.6 percent
increase between 2012 and 2030, topping out at .2 million barrels per day by 2030. By
comparison, the United States currently consumes almost 20 million barrels per day, of which over 13 million
barrels per day is imported. The difference in the amount the United States imports as a result of
expanded offshore drilling essentially amounts to a rounding error.
EXT – No Oil - Takes out Prices/Dependence
offshore drilling doesn’t solve independence or prices-not enough oil, world
market, long delay
Moriarty ’11 (Jim Moriarty, the CEO of The Surfrider Foundation, a grassroots non-profit
environmental organization that works to protect and preserve the world's oceans, waves, and
beaches, 1-14-11, “The Economic Case Against Offshore Drilling,”
http://www.theinertia.com/politics/the-economic-case-against-offshore-drilling/)
Now let’s
look at how much oil is potentially available offshore related to how much we use
and need.¶ The United States is a massive user of other countries oil. We have less than 3% of the
world’s oil reserves and yet we use over 20% of the world’s oil reserves. Those two figures should
make you pause. More than making you pause they should underscore the fact that we cannot solve our problem by
drilling offshore. We don’t have enough oil everywhere in the United States to satisfy even half
of our current needs.¶ To put this consumption into daily figures, the amount the United States consumes is 20.7
million barrels of oil per day. The amount the United States produces 8.3 million barrels a day.¶
The best case scenario for what we COULD drill off our coasts is 2 – 4 million barrels a
day.¶ Increased offshore drilling can’t get us off foreign oil anymore than a half a talk of gas
in your car can’t magically act like a full tank. We don’t have a full tank… we barely have a half tank.¶ The U.S.
Energy Information Administration (part of the Department of Energy) stated: “…[ drilling in] the Pacific, Atlantic, and
eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on oil prices before 2030”. The report
continues to say: “Because oil prices are determined on the international market … any impact on
average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.”
offshore drilling doesn’t solve prices or dependence-not enough oil, long delay,
not economical
Wangsness ’08 (Lisa Wangsness, a Reporter with Globe Newspaper Company, 6-20-08,
“New offshore drilling not a quick fix, analysts say,” Boston Globe, Factiva)
It would take at least a decade for oil companies to obtain permits, procure equipment, and
do the exploration necessary to get the oil out of the ground, most industry analysts say. And
even then, they add, the amount of new oil produced would probably be too small to significantly
affect world oil prices.¶ Some analysts point out that the wells the United States now depends on are being
depleted, and that new exploration could at least help offset that decline in supply from existing wells.¶ Expanded offshore exploration also
carries with it some environmental risks, from oil spills to destruction of habitat to vibrations that damage sea life, which environmentalists say
could have catastrophic consequences that far outweigh any potential benefit from further offshore drilling. But other analysts say that improved
technology means the risks are much smaller than a generation ago. In this view, a sensible compromise approach would be to make decisions on
potential drilling sites on a case-by-case basis.¶ Americans' anger over $4-a-gallon gasoline apparently has prompted greater public support for
renewed offshore drilling. A Gallup poll last month found that 57 percent of respondents favored such drilling while 41 percent were opposed.
Democratic candidate Barack Obama supports the moratorium.¶ The debate over expanded oil exploration has always been polarizing - recall the
ferocity of the fight over whether to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - but some analysts are calling for a more moderate tone.¶
"Clearly, drilling is not the solution to our oil dependence, but any serious energy proposal has to be comprehensive
and include more oil supply and production off the outer continental shelf," said Robbie Diamond, president and founder of Securing America's
Future Energy, a nonpartisan group committed to reducing the nation's dependence on oil. ¶ In the short term, oil prices could go down slightly if
Congress lifts its moratorium on new offshore drilling, which has been in place since 1981, because the market would factor in the prospect of
additional oil supplies later on. But the
actual oil would not be produced for 10 to 12 years.¶ And in any case,
increased American production from offshore drilling would not necessarily mean lower
prices for American consumers because oil is a global commodity whose price is set by
global supply and demand.¶ "Suppose the US produced all its oil domestically," said Robert Kaufmann, director of the Center for
Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University. "Do you think oil companies would sell oil to US consumers for one cent less than they
could get from French consumers? No. Where
oil comes from has no effect on price."¶ And there is not likely to be
enough new American oil to make much of a difference, Kaufmann and others said. About 86 billion barrels of additional
oil may lie offshore, according to the US government's Energy Information Administration. Of that amount, about 18
billion barrels are subject to the moratorium. Much of the rest lies in areas that are too
expensive to exploit or that oil companies have not yet tapped for technical reasons, fueling the
industry's desire for fresh territory.¶ "We're picking over bones," said Cathy Landry, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute. "If we
had new acres, we could hypothetically make a big find. We need oil and natural gas in the future." ¶ But in
the best-case scenario,
Kaufmann said, the United States could only produce an additional two to four million barrels of
offshore oil a day - not enough to shift the global supply-demand balance in a world market
that now consumes about 86 million barrels a day and is growing fast. About a quarter of that
consumption now occurs in the United States.¶ Kaufmann said that by the time any additional offshore oil got to
market, much of it would merely offset losses from the depletion of current oil fields.
Meanwhile, oil producing nations can easily keep supply constant by limiting capacity if they
know the United States is adding more.¶ "There's nothing on the supply side that we can really
do to disrupt OPEC's ability to influence prices," he said.
offshore drilling doesn’t solve prices or dependence-world market, not enough
oil
Gertz ’08 (Emily Gertz, a freelance journalist who covers the environment, science and
technology. She has written for Grist, Dwell magazine, Popular Mechanics online, Scientific
American online, and more, 9-12-08, “Can Offshore Drilling Really Make the U.S. Oil
Independent?,” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-offshore-drilling-makeus-independent)
So are promises of U.S. oil independence real—or rhetoric? The
issue is not whether the U.S. can significantly reduce its reliance on oil
there is enough that is recoverable to
significantly lower the price of a barrel of oil on the global market.¶ Even by 2030, offshore
drilling would not have a significant impact on oil prices, according to Martin, because oil prices
are determined on the global market. "The amount of total production anticipated—around
200,000 barrels a day—would be less than 1 percent of the total projected international
consumption."¶ And disruptions to the global supply affect the price of every barrel of oil the
U.S. purchases, whether it be from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or off the New Jersey coast.
"Suppose the U.S. got all its oil domestically, and the price was $100 a barrel. Then the
Saudi family was deposed," disrupting that country's oil exports, Kaufman says. "The Saudis produce about 10
million barrels a day of the world's 85 million, so clearly prices would go up, because now
there is this big shortfall of oil."¶ "Do you think oil companies are going to sell [U.S. oil] to
U.S. consumers for anything less than top price?," he asks. "The answer is no."¶ What if Congress
mandated that the offshore oil could not be exported? "The question of how much of that product that comes out, where it goes, I don't
think Congress can dictate," industry rep Penniman says. "It goes onto the market. It's a free market system…but it is
imports with domestic, offshore oil, say both Kaufman and Nathan, but whether
up to Congress [to pass] the laws on what they will and won't open."¶ Such a move could in fact increase the nation's energy costs. "Any time you
impose a constraint, like 'oil from Alaska cannot go to Japan,'" Kaufman notes, "you're saying, 'don't do the cheapest thing, do something more
expensive.' So everybody pays a little more. Where the
free market does work very efficiently is to minimize
transportation costs" for oil—which are determined by many factors, including the
location of the nearest refinery that can handle the particular characteristics of the crude
oil being shipped.¶ Kaufman dismisses as "nonsense" any promises that offshore drilling
could make the U.S. "oil independent." Even if it could somehow insulate itself from the ups and downs of the global oil
market, he notes, the U.S. would have to make a huge leap in domestic oil production to replace
what it buys from overseas.¶ "At its peak in production, which occurred in 1970s, the U.S.
produced about 10 million [barrels of oil] a day," Kaufman says. "Now, after 30 years of fairly steady decline,
we produce about five million barrels a day," whereas we consume 20 million barrels daily.
"Whoever talks about oil independence has to tell a story about how we close a 15-million-barrel gap."
EXT – Arctic Drilling Fails
Empirics prove-Arctic drilling fails
Margaret Hobson, Environment and Energy Correspondent, 7/18/13, “Is Arctic oil exploration dead in the U.S.?” EE News,
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1059984582/ //RX
A year ago this September, Royal Dutch Shell PLC began
the first new oil drilling in U.S. Arctic waters in
more than two decades. The company spent $5 billion and dispatched an armada of ships and equipment to offshore Alaska to
evaluate the energy resources on its federal leases. From the beginning, however , Shell's operation faced a multitude of
problems -- everything from lingering sea ice to a damaged oil spill containment dome. The Dutch
company was never able to secure the permits needed to drill into the hydrocarbon zone on its
leases. The final straw came after the summer season ended. As Shell left Alaska waters, the Coast Guard found multiple
technical violations on the Discoverer drill rig, and the Kulluk drill rig ran aground on its
way to Seattle.
Remoteness of Arctic makes largest source of oil inaccessible and not costcompetitive for companies – most recent analysis
Cockerham 14. Sean Cockerham, journalist Daily News Washington Bureau. 1/30/2014.
Shell won't drill offshore in Alaska Arctic this year. Anchorage Daily News.
http://www.adn.com/2014/01/30/3298785/shell-abandons-plans-for-alaska.html //NM
Environmental groups hailed Shell's decision to suspend the effort.¶ "Shell
is finally recognizing what we've been saying all along,
that offshore drilling in the Arctic is risky, costly and simply not a good bet from a business
perspective," said Jacqueline Savitz, Oceana's vice president for U.S. oceans.¶ Erik Grafe, the Earthjustice attorney who led the lease
challenge, called on the Obama administration to do a new environmental study. ¶ "The Department of the Interior now
needs to take a hard look at whether the Chukchi Sea should be open for oil drilling at all,
beginning with a full and public environmental impact statement process that addresses the Ninth Circuit decision and does not minimize the
risks of oil drilling in this vibrant but vulnerable sea," Grafe said in a statement. ¶ Greenpeace urged other companies that are considering offshore
Arctic drilling to learn from Shell's experience and "conclude that this
region is too remote, too hostile and too
iconic to be worth exploring."¶ "The decision by Shell's new CEO to suspend Arctic Ocean
drilling in 2014 was both sensible and inevitable," Lois Epstein, an engineer and Arctic
program director for The Wilderness Society, said in a statement. "The Arctic Ocean has proven to be
logistically challenging for drilling and mobilization, and a bottomless pit for investment." ¶
Lack of resources and infrastructure means it’s impossible to recover oil from
the Arctic area – Shell failure proves
Hobson 13. Margaret Kriz Hobson, E&E reporter. Published: Thursday, July 18, 2013.
OFFSHORE DRILLING: Is Arctic oil exploration dead in the U.S.? EnergyWire.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories /1059984582 //NM
Now the growth of shale oil and gas development, together with Shell's
ill-fated 2012 drilling program, has
tempered market enthusiasm for Arctic energy development.¶ In February, an Ernst & Young
report warned that despite Alaska's bountiful offshore oil resources, Arctic projects are
vulnerable to high cost overruns, long lead times and a lack of support facilities, all of
which could sour investment in the region (EnergyWire, Feb. 8).¶ Shell's inability to sink a drill bit
into its Arctic leases continues to weigh heavily on the minds of top energy executives. Harald
Norvik, a board member at ConocoPhillips and former CEO of Statoil, recently told Reuters that interest in Arctic energy "is very high, but
nevertheless there is more and more concern about the environment and risk part of it ."¶
ConocoPhillips had been seeking
to drill off Alaska's shores in 2014 but canceled its plans earlier this year, citing regulatory
uncertainty (EnergyWire, April 11).
Too many hurdles to Arctic drilling – unpredictable
DeMarban 13. Alex DeMarban, veteran reporter, editor Alaska Newspapers Inc, business/oil
reporter Anchorage Daily News, Alaska Dispatch. January 20, 2013. Will Arctic offshore oil
drilling prove uneconomic in wake of US shale oil boom? Alaska Dispatch.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/will-arctic-offshore-oil-drilling-prove-uneconomic-wakeus-shale-oil-boom //NM
In the early 1990s, low
oil prices led Shell to abandon its original foray into the offshore Arctic,
despite having punched more than 20 holes, including some that found oil. ¶ Fast-forward to 2013 and it's hard not to
wonder if history will repeat itself. In total, Shell has spent $5 billion on leases, operational costs and other expenses, but the
current exploration phase of that effort might just be the easy part. ¶ To get any discovery to market in the years to
come, Shell will have to clear more regulatory hurdles, fend off additional legal battles, and
spend billions more to create concrete or steel production platforms, essentially remote
islands to process crude. The company also will need hundreds of miles of pipeline to ship
oil across one of the planet's most inhospitable and environmentally protected regions.¶ Shell
spokesman Curtis Smith said it's too early to speculate on how the Kulluk grounding will impact Shell's ongoing exploration program off
Alaska.¶ "We will first complete an assessment of the Kulluk, but our confidence in the strength of this program remains," he said. ¶ At
what
oil price -- or at what point in time -- does the project become uneconomic? Smith said he couldn’t
answer. And what will happen to oil prices in the coming years is anyone's guess.
EXT – Oil Production High
US Oil Rapidly increasing rapidly in the status quo but Demand will never be
met
Marin Katusa, 6-27-2014,Chief Energy Investment Strategist, Senior Editor, Mathmatician,
6/27/2014, “US #1 in Oil: So Why Isn’t Gasoline $0.80 per Gallon?” Casey Research,
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/us-1-in-oil-so-why-isnt-gasoline-0.80-per-gallon
The United States has the largest refining capacity in the world and is still by far the largest
consumer of oil in the world (though China is beginning to catch up), and its refineries
require 15 million barrels of oil a day. That means even though, due to the shale revolution,
domestic production has dramatically increased to about 8 million barrels, the US still has
to import between 7 and 8 million barrels of expensive foreign oil a day. Let's take a look at
who the US buys the imported oil from. (Now that I finally figured out my way around the new
Windows 8—which, by the way, really sucks—I can even add some color to my tables.) Country
Millions of barrels exported to US per day Canada 2.5–3 Saudi Arabia 1.2–1.5 Mexico 0.8–1.0
Venezuela 0.8 Kuwait 0.3–0.5 Canada is blue because it is not only friendly with the US, but
also has the ability to increase oil production. The other countries are red because they either
have decreasing oil production, or the country is not on good terms with the US government, or
the production may be at risk for various reasons. The "red countries" all sell oil to the US at
higher prices than does Canada. As I said, the US imports about 7 million barrels of oil a day,
and our top 5 exporters make up between 5.6 and 6.8 million barrels while the rest is split among
other countries. This means that even though the US has significantly increased its oil
production in the past five years, a good chunk of oil has to be imported at much higher
prices. And higher crude oil prices for refineries means higher prices at the gas pump.
EXT – Restrictions Not the Problem
Not that much oil is restricted now
CBO August 2012 (Congressional Budget Office, August 2012, “Potential Budgetary Effects
of Immediately Opening Federal Lands to Oil and Gas Leasing” heinonline)
On the basis of information in the 2008 inter-departmental inventory of onshore resources and in¶ DOI's 2010 updated estimates of undiscovered
oil and¶ gas resources in Alaska, CBO estimates that roughly¶ 60 billion BOE of oil and natural gas resources are¶ located under federal lands
(excluding ANWR, which is¶ discussed separately below).' CBO estimates that about¶ 80
percent of those resources are located
under federal¶ lands that are leased, currently available for leasing under¶ standard terms,
or available for leasing subject to minor¶ stipulations (including temporary withdrawals of various¶ tracts for landuse planning, seasonal restrictions on drill-ing that are in effect for less than six months in a year,¶ and certain requirements for surface uses).
Those terms¶
and constraints probably will have a minimal effect on¶ the commercial value of the leases
over time.¶ 8¶ About 15 percent of onshore resources are covered by¶ administrative prohibitions on
leasing or are subject to¶ major stipulations (including prohibitions on drilling on¶ the surface directly above the leased tract and seasonal¶
restrictions on drilling for more than six months in a¶ year) that could significantly affect the lease values. The¶ other 5 percent of
the onshore area, which includes¶ national parks and wilderness areas, is by statute closed
to¶ leasing.
Economy Advantage
1NC Economy Advantage
Offshore drilling doesn’t affect prices
Fong 12. Jocelyn Fong, researcher Media Matters for America. ClimateProgress ThinkProgress March 22, 2012. 20 Experts Who Say Drilling Won’t Lower Gas Prices.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/22/450136/20-experts-who-say-drilling-wont-lowergas-prices/ //NM
In a pretty impressive act of journalism, the Associated Press recently conducted a “statistical
analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil
production.” The result: “No statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S.
wells and the price at the pump.” It’s neat to see math cut through the talking points and get
straight to the truth of the matter — which is that expanding drilling is a fundamentally
ineffectual response to gas price spikes.¶ Given that changes in U.S. oil production don’t move
gasoline prices, it should be clear that U.S. government policies related to drilling are of even
smaller consequence. Indeed, 92 percent of economists surveyed by the Chicago Booth
School of Business agreed this week that “changes in U.S. gasoline prices over the past 10
years have predominantly been due to market factors rather than U.S. federal economic or
energy policies.”
Status quo deep-sea drilling solves any impacts – increased drilling won’t
change prices
Swann 12. Christopher Swann, Reuters. Globe and Mail. February 27, 2012. Drilling alone
won't bring cheap U.S. oil. Gale: Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Accession Number:
GALE|A281353950 //NM
Republican presidential hopefuls
are presenting the U.S. public with a familiar fantasy: By
expanding offshore drilling they can bring gasoline prices back to earth. With the U.S. pumping only 9
per cent of global crude, its leverage is modest. But the world's biggest consumer can affect demand, the other determinant of price. That,
however, requires talk of conservation.¶ Americans get restive as pump prices rise toward $4 (U.S.) a gallon. Chastising President Barack Obama,
and pledging to cut prices back to $2.50 a gallon, as Newt Gingrich has done, is standard political salesmanship. It's
also economic
hubris. The United States pumps just 7.5 million barrels of the world's 82 million barrels a
day of crude, according to BP. One nation can't control world prices with such a modest
market share.¶ Even if the United States were to throw environmental caution to the winds and open up areas
currently out of bounds to producers, the extra output could be offset by oil cartel OPEC. Swing
producers, most notably Saudi Arabia, might swiftly reverse the effect of years of extra American
drilling if they were unhappy with the resulting oil price.¶ It is also hard for Republicans to
argue that the United States is failing to exploit its own oil. Oil output has been rising for
the first time since the 1970s - thanks to deep-sea drilling and surging output from shale regions in North
Dakota, Texas and elsewhere. The result is that reliance on foreign oil has fallen below 50 per cent, back to
levels last seen three decades ago. None of this, however, has stopped the price of Brent from
rising 60 per cent over the past two years.
Oil shock vulnerability inevitable - independence impossible
Tom Gjeltan 12, Global Economist, 10/25/2012, “Energy Independence For U.S.? Try Energy
Security,” NPR News, http://www.npr.org/2012/10/25/163573768/energy-independence-for-u-stry-energy-security
In truth, it would be virtually impossible for any country to be totally independent where
energy is concerned. Not only would it have to produce all its own oil; it would also have to
be independent of the global economy. Austin Mitchell walks away from an oil derrick outside
Williston, N.D., in July 2011. North Dakota is now the No. 2 producer of oil in the U.S. behind
Texas. Energy Could U.S. Produce Enough Oil To Rival Saudi Arabia? Like sugar, wheat, gold
and other commodities, oil is also bought and sold on a global market. All the oil produced
in the world becomes part of the global oil supply; all the oil used comes out of that supply.
The global oil price depends on the supply/demand relation, and the price is essentially the
same for all countries. Energy analyst Amy Jaffe likens players in the global oil market to
swimmers in a swimming pool. "If you're in the deep end or the shallow end and somebody
takes water out of the pool, it affects both swimmers equally," Jaffe says. "[It's the] same
thing if we start pouring water in. You're not pouring the water into just the deep end or
just the shallow end."
No oil shocks – every empiric
Kahn 11 (Jeremy, 2/13, “Crude reality”, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/02/13/crude_reality/)
Among those asking this tough question are two young professors, Eugene Gholz, at the University of Texas,
and Daryl Press, at Dartmouth College. To find out what actually happens when the world’s petroleum
supply is interrupted, the duo analyzed every major oil disruption since 1973. The results,
published in a recent issue of the journal Strategic Studies, showed that in almost all cases,
the ensuing rise in prices, while sometimes steep, was short-lived and had little lasting
economic impact. When there have been prolonged price rises, they found the cause to be panic on the part of oil purchasers rather than
a supply shortage. When oil runs short, in other words, the market is usually adept at filling the
gap. One striking example was the height of the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. If anything
was likely to produce an oil shock, it was this: two major Persian Gulf producers directly targeting each other’s oil
facilities. And indeed, prices surged 25 percent in the first months of the conflict. But within 18 months of the war’s start
they had fallen back to their prewar levels, and they stayed there even though the fighting
continued to rage for six more years. Surprisingly, during the 1984 “Tanker War” phase of that conflict — when Iraq tried
to sink oil tankers carrying Iranian crude and Iran retaliated by targeting ships carrying oil from Iraq and its Persian Gulf allies — the price of oil
continued to drop steadily. Gholz and Press found just one case after 1973 in which the market mechanisms failed: the 1979-1980 Iranian oil
strike which followed the overthrow of the Shah, during which Saudi Arabia, perhaps hoping to appease Islamists within the country, also led
OPEC to cut production, exacerbating the supply shortage. In
their paper, Gholz and Press ultimately conclude
that the market’s adaptive mechanisms function independently of the US military presence in the Persian Gulf,
and that they largely protect the American economy from being damaged by oil shocks. “To the
extent that the United States faces a national security challenge related to Persian Gulf oil, it is not ‘how to protect the oil we need’ but ‘how to
assure consumers that there is nothing to fear,’ ” the two write. “That is a thorny policy problem, but it does not require large military
deployments and costly military operations.”
No impact to shocks – experts agree that oil market and economy are
adaptable
Kahn 11 (Jeremy, 2/13, “Crude reality”, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/02/13/crude_reality/)
The idea that a sudden spike in oil prices spells economic doom has influenced America’s
foreign policy since at least 1973, when Arab states, upset with Western support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War, drastically cut
production and halted exports to the United States. The result was a sudden quadrupling in crude prices and a deep global recession. Many
Americans still have vivid memories of gas lines stretching for blocks, and of the unemployment, inflation, and general sense of insecurity and
Economists have a
term for this disruption: an oil shock. The idea that such oil shocks will inevitably wreak havoc on the US economy has
panic that followed. Even harder hit were our allies in Europe and Japan, as well as many developing nations.
become deeply rooted in the American psyche, and in turn the United States has made ensuring the smooth flow of crude from the Middle East a
central tenet of its foreign policy. Oil security is one of the primary reasons America has a long-term military presence in the region. Even aside
from the Iraq and Afghan wars, we have equipment and forces positioned in Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar; the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet
is permanently stationed in Bahrain. But
a growing body of economic research suggests that this
conventional view of oil shocks is wrong. The US economy is far less susceptible to
interruptions in the oil supply than previously assumed, according to these studies.
Scholars examining the recent history of oil disruptions have found the worldwide oil
market to be remarkably adaptable and surprisingly quick at compensating for shortfalls.
Economists have found that much of the damage once attributed to oil shocks can more
persuasively be laid at the feet of bad government policies. The US economy, meanwhile,
has become less dependent on Persian Gulf oil and less sensitive to changes in crude prices
overall than it was in 1973.
And, lack of oil is offense – It’s new worse for the oil industry
Valentine 6/23. Katie Valentine, reporter ClimateProgress, worked American Progress
Energy Department. June 23, 2014. Judge Blocks Plans For Offshore Drilling In Mississippi.
ClimateProgress – ThinkProgress.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3451960/mississippi-judge-blocks-offshore-drillingrules/ //NM
Patterson said she thinks if the MDA does complete a comprehensive EIS, it would find that drilling
in Mississippi Sound
wasn’t in the state’s best interest. One of the group’s biggest economic concerns is that
drilling in the Mississippi Sound would hit the tourism industry in Mississippi, due to the proximity of the
proposed drilling site to Mississippi’s barrier islands. Those islands are treasured for camping and fishing by
Mississippi’s residents, she said, but they also bring tourists from all over the country. Putting gas rigs near those islands would
disturb the islands’ integrity as wild places — being able to see drilling rig lights and flares doesn’t make for a peaceful camping experience, she
said.¶ “They’d
be very hard pressed to show that drilling would in fact be the right choice for
Mississippi,” Patterson said. “There’s very little resource out there — very little natural gas, probably no
oil — and so it’s just hard to see how that tiny bit of fossil fuel would be enough to justify
jeopardizing all of those other really important things, including a really important element of quality of life
along the coast.”¶ Patterson said she didn’t know what the timeline will be for the drilling rules — it all depends on whether the MDA decides to
appeal the ruling or whether it decides to complete a new EIS. She said right now, she’s working with local officials to try to get them to pass
resolutions in support of keeping drilling out of the barrier island region. She said especially
in the near future, as restoration
money from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill begins to funnel into the Gulf, undertaking
projects that could put the
waters off the coast of Mississippi in danger of yet another spill wouldn’t be smart.
No impact to economic decline
Barnett 9 (Thomas, Senior Strategic Researcher – Naval War College, “The New Rules:
Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis”, Asset Protection Network, 8-25,
http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398bl.aspx)
When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary
predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading
to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the
talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has
had virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the more than threedozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the
last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and
three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry
is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the
opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden
spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a
most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-
Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both
tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends. And with
the U nited S tates effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan),
our involvement
elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest , both leading up to and following the onset of the
economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with
pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere
else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn , occasionally
pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and
training local forces. So, to
sum up: No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban
riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); Not a
single state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even
triggered); No great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear
powers (despite all that diplomacy); A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power
(inevitable given the strain); and No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things
we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States
on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've
finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on
public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the
most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can
we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political
radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by center-left
or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts
across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules),
but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the W orld T rade O rganization is functioning as it was
designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic
radicalism was inflamed by
the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing disenchantment with
the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed
connecting evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently
frightening to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I
argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts
and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading"
America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging
interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes
undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's
post-World War II international liberal trade order. Do I expect to read any analyses along those lines in the blogosphere any time soon?
Absolutely not. I expect
the fantastic fear-mongering to proceed apace. That's what the Internet is for.
EXT – Doesn’t Lower Prices
not enough oil in the ocs to affect prices
Robertson ’11 (Joseph Robertson, founder and director of Casavaria Publishing, where he
edits CafeSentido.com, Elindulnek.com and TheHotSpring.net. He also teaches at Villanova
University, where he co-edits the online art and literature magazine, Naufragios, 10-20-11,
“Nuclear Power & Offshore Drilling May Keep Oil Prices Artificially High,”
http://www.casavaria.com/hotspring/2011/10/20/1474/nuclear-power-offshore-drilling-maykeep-oil-prices-artificially-high/)
With gasoline prices at record highs in 2008, 2009 and 2010, 2011
has looked like a microcosm of the longer oilmarket trend: consistent increases in pricing, fuel costs hurting small business and the
middle class, slowing the pace of economic growth in the US, and—maybe most strangely of all—no national
policy to motivate a rapid, comprehensive transition away from fossil fuels and the volatility and cost inefficiency of their
products to the wider marketplace. Instead, we have seen a recommitment to ramping up production,
expanding drilling and exploration, and prioritizing local importation (from Canada and Mexico), instead of real coordinated
policy planning to end dependency on foreign-sourced fuels.¶ With the oil strain on an already precarious American economy at an historic
extreme, Pres. Bush in 2008 pushed Congress to hold an “up-or-down vote” on renewed exploration
of the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) before its August recess. Opponents protested vocally that none of any oil found there
would be available for production for 10 to 15 years, the total amount would do little to
ease the overall dependency on foreign-sourced fuels, and that the OCS plan was little more than an aggressive
attempt to deliver to hugely profitable oil firms an unjustifiable gift, taking advantage of the pressurized situation of exorbitant prices.¶ The
Energy Information Agency (EIA), evaluating the OCS strategy, found that opening offshore sites in the
Pacific, the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico would still not produce enough oil and natural gas to
have a significant effect on domestic reserves, even as far out as the year 2030. In July 2008, as the debate
raged over drilling, CNN reported that Democratic members of Congress were saying a preliminary investigation was attributing more than 50%
of the soaring oil prices to speculation, while traders were saying OPEC had deliberately held production low in order to drive prices up.
Dependency on speculation-susceptible foreign-sourced fuels was building unaffordability into the US economy.
OCS drilling doesn’t solve prices or independence
McAuliff ’11 (Michael McAuliff, a senior congressional correspondent and blogger for
HuffingtonPost.com and a former Washington reporter and editor for the New York Daily News,
7-6-11, “More U.S. Oil Drilling Won't Lower Gas Prices, Experts Say,”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/more-us-oil-drilling-wont-help-gasprices_n_858473.html)
"You might, under
really optimistic scenarios, over five or six years, add 2 million barrels a day of production," said Lynch,
would still be big
importers -- we would still be dependent on foreign oil."¶ And prices would not move much
because of it, the analysts explained. Oil is traded on a world market, and the United States
does not have enough petroleum to increase the global supply, which would reduce demand
-- and thus the price -- for fuel.¶ "In 2009, the U.S. produced about 7 percent of what was produced in
the entire world, so increasing the oil production in the U.S. is not going to make much of a
difference in world markets and world prices," said the EIA's Martin. "It just gets lost. It's not that much."¶ And boosting
drilling in the outer continental shelf?¶ "What comes out of the OCS is about 1 percent of the world total,
and that's not enough to affect world prices," Martin said, even noting that she believes there are
who favors more drilling, even if he rejects the politicians' arguments. "On a global scale, it's significant. But we
even more untapped reserves than officials can estimate at the moment.¶ Republicans are right about some
things, the experts agreed. More drilling would mean more jobs and more tax revenue, if the industry's subsidies and tax breaks were revoked. It
could also reduce oil imports -- even if gas prices wouldn't drop.¶ More
offshore drilling, in fact, would be a huge boon for the oil
not going to make us energy
and gas companies that could do it.¶ "It would be a lot of money for a lot people, but it 's
independent," said Lynch, the analyst.¶ The oil and gas industry has poured $8.8 million into the campaigns of the drilling bill's lead
sponsors.¶ Lynch wouldn't rule out the idea of the United States becoming energy independent,
someday, but rated the odds as slim.¶ "On a scale of Osama bin Laden going to church with
Pat Robertson -- it's close to that," he said.
ocs drilling can’t solve prices even with high reserve projections
Martin ’09 (Phyllis Martin, a Senior Energy Analyst in the us Department of Energy, 8-19-09,
“Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer
Continental Shelf,” http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html)
Assumptions about exploration, development, and production of economical fields (drilling schedules, costs, platform selection, reserves-toproduction 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 non-Federal 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.
Consensus of experts agree that offshore drilling doesn’t affect prices
Fong 12. Jocelyn Fong, researcher Media Matters for America. ClimateProgress ThinkProgress March 22, 2012. 20 Experts Who Say Drilling Won’t Lower Gas Prices.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/22/450136/20-experts-who-say-drilling-wont-lowergas-prices/ //NM
Enterprise Institute, “If the U.S. produced more of its own oil, it would
probably reduce imports, but it’s not likely that it would reduce prices … We probably cannot produce
so much oil to exert downward pressure on prices compared to the world market.” ¶ Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor, Cato Institute:
“Sure, more domestic oil creates the possibility of fewer refined imports tied to the price of Brent crude, but given that the price of
Brent sets the price for crude generally, the result would be more profit for domestic crude
producers rather than significantly lower gasoline prices for Americans (not that there’s anything wrong with
that).”¶ Doug Holtz-Eakin, American Action Forum: “Domestic action to increase production will not
lower gas prices set on a global market.”¶ Christopher Knittel, MIT economist: “There are not
many markets where the United States can’t impose its will on market outcomes … This is one
we can’t, and it’s hard for the average American to understand that and it’s easy for politicians to feed off that.”¶ Pinelopi Goldberg, Yale
economist: “US domestic policy has only tiny effect on the world price of oil. US foreign policy is
probably more relevant than energy policy.”¶ Steve Koonin, Institute for Defense Analyses : “When you hear the
international oil companies advocating for energy independence, it’s really about making
money, which isn’t a bad thing … If they produce a million more barrels a day, they’re not going to change the global price much. And since
Ken Green, American
they know the global price is going up, they’ll just make more money. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it doesn’t solve the price problem or
the greenhouse gas problem.”¶ Michael Levi, Council on Foreign Relations: “The amount of oil you produce at home doesn’t affect the price …
You can lower your vulnerability to price by lowering your consumption of oil, but not by
increasing your production.”¶ Severin Borenstein, UC Berkeley economist: “Producing more oil domestically
will enrich the U.S. economy, particularly U.S. oil companies and their workers. With oil so valuable, it may be a good idea, though the value
must be weighed against environmental consequences. But it will have no discernible impact on gas prices, because it will change the world’s
supply/demand balance for oil by less than 2 or 3 percent over a decade or more.” ¶ David Peterson, Duke
statistician: “U.S. production
and demand have little to do with the price of gasoline in the U.S.Ӧ Edward Melnick, NYU statistician: When U.S. production goes up,
the price of gas “is certainly not going down … The data does not suggest that whatsoever.” ¶ David Sandalow, Department of
Energy: “Drilling offshore to lower oil prices is like walking an extra 20 feet per day to lose
weight. … It’s just not going to make much of a difference.”
Domestic offshore drilling will never make a difference to oil prices
Weiss 11. Daniel J. Weiss, MPP, Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at Center for
American Progress, February 2, 2011, The False Promise of ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ - Ignoring Real
Solutions to Promote More Domestic Drilling. Center for American Progress.
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2011/02/02/9122/the-false-promise-of-drill-babydrill/ //NM
Think Progress noted that allies of big oil “exploit[ed the] Egyptian uprising to shill for more domestic oil drilling.” This began after oil prices
climbed nearly $7 per barrel between January 27 and 31 because of fears about the security of the 2.5 percent of world oil transported through
Egypt.¶ Yet more
drilling would provide zero relief from high oil and gasoline prices now, and
make a scant difference in 10 years. The Energy Information Administration noted that the “long lead times from discovery
to production limit the increase in production, particularly offshore.” This means that an increase in U.S. oil production will
make little or no difference in the world oil price or what Americans pay at the gas pump.¶
Ken Green, resident scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has explained that crude oil is a global
commodity whose price will be unaffected by new U.S. production. Greenwire reported that:¶ “The
world price is the world price. Even if we were producing 100 percent of our oil,” Green
said, if prices increase because of a shortage in China or India, “our price would go up to
the same thing…We probably couldn’t produce enough to affect the world price of oil ,” he
added. “People don’t understand that.”¶ Two weeks ago, Green astutely predicted that some politicians would exploit higher oil prices to boost
Big Oil’s desire to drill on fragile lands and in coastal waters. “We’re likely to see a replay of the McCain-Palin ‘drill, baby, drill,’ ‘drill here,
drill now.’ It will probably be a cause célèbre for the tea party.”
Drilling won’t affect prices – empirics prove
McAuliff 11. Michael McAuliff, Huffington Post Reporter. 5/6/11. More U.S. Oil Drilling
Won't Lower Gas Prices, Experts Say. Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/more-us-oil-drilling-wont-help-gasprices_n_858473.html //NM
Republicans used the politically potent argument about the cost of gas Thursday to pass a bill expanding
offshore oil and gas exploration. But analysts say there's a major flaw in their case: More
drilling will barely budge prices.¶ The Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, which passed 266 to 144 with 33 Democrats
WASHINGTON --
buying into the scheme, orders the Department of the Interior to move quickly to offer three leases to drill in the Gulf of Mexico and one off the coast of Virginia. The
the legislation won't reduce the price at the pump, experts
said. Nor would a vastly more ambitious effort have much impact.¶ "It's not going to change the price
of oil overnight, and it's probably not going to have a huge impact on the price of oil ever," said Mike Lynch
of Strategic Energy and Economic Research, Inc. referring not just to those four leases, but to expanding
all U.S. drilling.¶ Yet House Republicans -- backed by nearly three dozen Democrats -- held out their push for exploitation of the four tracts as a panacea
bill demands that the leases be executed by next year. ¶ But
for the weak economy and high gas prices.
Expanded offshore drilling would do nothing to affect dependence or prices in
the short term
Rob Portman, Politifact, 4-26-2011, "Sen. Rob Portman says easing access to drilling would
immediately reduce dependence on foreign oil ," PolitiFact Ohio,
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/may/04/rob-portman/sen-rob-portman-sayseasing-access-drilling-would-/
U.S. Sen. Rob Portman weighed in by saying that price fixing, if there is any, should be prosecuted, but that it’s also time to harness
energy sources "in our own backyard." "As an immediate bridge, we should increase access for oil exploration and
production in energy-rich areas of the country like the Outer Continental Shelf, and in parts of Alaska," the Ohio Republican said in his column,
which ran on his Senate website as well as on RedState.com. "This will create jobs, drive investment, and immediately reduce our dangerous
dependence on foreign oil." Immediately? Not
so fast, say the experts. Pretend that environmentalists
dropped all objections to drilling for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf -- that area that lies offshore between states’
jurisdictions and the end of United States oceanic boundaries. Also pretend that the public decided its need for oil trumped what
environmentalists see as the sanctity of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. Since we’re just pretending, everyone join in: Drill, baby,
drill. Then
wait. See ya around 2021. These things take time. The process would have to start
with bidding for government leases -- normally a two- to three-year process -- which could lead to the
establishment of exploratory wells just to see what, exactly, lies below. Only then is it time to firm up plans for production while drilling more
wells, building offshore platforms, assembling and inserting pipelines and, finally, bringing the oil to refineries. "It’s
quite a while
before it can go into production, and the lag time is significant," Phyllis Martin, a senior energy analyst
with the U.S. Energy Information Agency or EIA, told us. As a general rule, " it could be anywhere from three to 11 years, and three is
really fast-track and that’s for shallow offshore" production with little or no need for exploration or lease negotiations. The price differential, too,
is misunderstood, she said. That’s because gasoline
prices are set on the global market, and as various studies have
noted, OPEC and other foreign oil producers could cut back or respond in other ways to keep prices high. "So
it’s not going to have a major impact," Martin said. "There’ll be a few pennies, but not major" savings. Besides talking to
Martin, we looked at several studies. Among the highlights: The Outer Continental Shelf of Alaska’s Beaufort Sea could produce its first oil in
2019, and the Chukchi Sea area in 2022, according to a February 2011 analysis by Northern Economics for Shell Exploration and Production.
Access to the Continental Outer Shelf off the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico "would
not have a significant impact
on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030," said a 2009 update of an earlier EIA study. That was
two years ago, when EIA said that "leasing would begin no sooner than 2012 and production would not be expected to start before 2017." Push
that back by two years now. ANWR drilling would take 10 years to actually produce oil, according to an EIA analysis in 2008 requested by the
late U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican. That 10-year timeline would be pushed back if there were protracted legal battles or delays in
getting government permits, the analysis said. Portman’s claim seemed off base when we first saw it, but that’s only because we had seen
something similar to it before. It was voiced by Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, in 2008 when he was running for president and
gasoline prices spiked. A number of other GOP officeholders have repeated it in recent weeks, each wanting to
lift federal drilling
prohibitions more quickly and more extensively than President Barack Obama and Democrats have been willing to do. PolitiFact ruled
McCain’s claim False in 2008, noting that while some economists and energy experts agreed that producing more American oil would be good
for jobs and, eventually, the trade balance, it would have no immediate effect on gasoline supply or prices. "I have
a problem linking the drilling to current gas prices for political reasons," Dr. A.F. Alhaji, an associate professor of economics at Ohio Northern
University and an international expert on oil markets, told PolitiFact nearly three years ago. "The reality is there
is no correlation
between today's prices and what gasoline will be discovered in the outer shelf." Before researching this
subject, we asked a Portman spokeswoman, Christine Mangi, about the source of her boss’s claim. Her response in an e-mail: "Sen. Portman was
referring to, among other things, the situation in the Gulf. The Obama Administration was not processing deep water permits in the Gulf which
contributed to a 13 percent reduction in oil production there. By freeing up our domestic, energy rich resources in a place such as the Gulf, we
can immediately reduce our reliance on foreign sources of oil." Yet Portman said nothing about the Gulf of Mexico (which accounts for about 30
percent of U.S. oil production, according to the EIA). His column took a big-picture view of energy needs and did not engage in the dispute about
the government’s speed in granting permits since the BP oil spill in the Gulf in 2010. But most of the Gulf drilling is in fact on the Outer
Continental Shelf, so we asked Andy Radford, a senior policy advisor at the American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry trade group, about it.
He said that at a high point before the spill, the Gulf produced about 1.7 million barrels of oil a day. That’s down by 10 percent to 15 percent
today, he said. And if we had that oil now? There would be little to no effect on prices because oil
trades on a global market.
India and developing nations are consuming more. Turmoil in the Middle East plays a role, too. As for the drop in the Gulf of Mexico,
"The Saudis can make that up in a few hours," Radford said. "The effect would be more psychological than anything." In
fairness, Portman spoke of reducing reliance on foreign oil, not of reducing the price. But he spoke of an "immediate bridge" to harnessing
America’s natural resources by increasing oil production and exploration "in energy-rich areas of our country like the Outer Continental Shelf,
and in parts of Alaska." This
would "immediately reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil,"
he said. All evidence is that it would not. The current reduction in oil flowing from the Gulf, which Mangi mentioned in
defense of her boss’s claim, represents a tiny portion of this country’s oil output, and the reduced flow is not entirely attributable to the post-spill
slowdown in issuing drilling permits. In some cases, Gulf fields were simply tapped out, ending their productive life, said Richard Charter, a
senior policy advisor for the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife. Furthermore, issuance of new permits has picked up, according to
records from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. New permits can lead to more exploration, but
there is no guarantee that new exploration will lead to a specific amount of oil. As we said already:
It takes time.
EXT – Shocks Inevitable/Drilling Doesn’t Solve
Despite Oil Boom the U.S is still extremely vulnerable to Oil Shocks
Brad Plumer January 16 2014, reporter on energy for Washington Post, “How the oil boom could change U.S. foreign policy “, The
th
Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/16/how-the-u-s-oil-boom-is-changing-the-world-in-6-charts/
//RD
The United States is suddenly awash in crude oil. From 2008 to 2013, domestic oil production rose by 2.5 million
barrels per day — the biggest five-year increase in the country's history. Last year, U.S. produced more oil than it imported for the first time since
1995. So
what does that mean for the rest of the world? Or for U.S. foreign policy? Well, for
starters, it probably doesn't mean that Americans can now safely ignore the Middle Eas t. The
U.S. economy is still heavily reliant on oil, and prices are still largely swayed by what goes
on in the global markets. Disruptions in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq still have a
big impact . That's one conclusion of a major new report by a commission of former generals and senior officials, backed by Securing
America's Energy Future (SAFE). "The oil boom has sparked a lot of loose talk about how we can now
ignore what goes on in the Middle East," said Adm. Dennis Blair, a former director of National
Intelligence who led the commission, in an interview Tuesday. " But that's just not true ." Blair pointed out that the oil boom
has already had some impact on U.S. foreign policy. For example, increased North American oil production likely allowed the United States and
Europe to impose stricter sanctions on Iran without worrying as much about resulting price spikes. There are also early, tentative signs that China
could become more cooperative on Middle East issues now that the fast-growing nation has displaced the United States as the biggest oil importer
from the region. But what's
arguably more telling is how much hasn't changed. Even with the
boom, the United States is still quite vulnerable to oil shocks . As such, the SAFE report proposes a number of
policy steps to deal with that, from working with China to protect global oil shipping lanes to developing more predictable guidelines for using
strategic petroleum reserves. It also calls for a renewed push to curtail the U.S. economy's dependence on oil, such as shifting to alternative
vehicle fuels such as electricity and natural gas. After
all, even with the shale boom, U.S. production is still
expected to peak by 2020 or so.
More domestic oil production still leaves the US vulnerable to oil shocks.
Can’t solve without renewables.
John Aziz ’14, economics and business correspondent at The Week, 6-20-14, The Week, “The
lessons of Iraq: The U.S. economy is still way too vulnerable to oil price shocks”,
http://theweek.com/article/index/263515/the-lessons-of-iraq-the-us-economy-is-still-way-toovulnerable-to-oil-price-shocks
With Iraq facing an incipient civil war, the issue is coming back into focus. A big enough oil
spike translating into soaring energy prices could once again squeeze American consumers and
businesses, leaving the economy vulnerable to a recession. Of course, the U.S. is in a better
position to weather the storm than in 2007. Interest rates remain near historic lows, giving
debtors some breathing room. The total level of debt relative to the size of the economy is
lower, too. And the U.S. — thanks to a shale oil and natural gas boom — is much less
dependent on energy brought in from abroad. But just because the U.S. is importing a
lower proportion of its energy doesn't mean that it isn't vulnerable to energy shocks. The
U.S. energy market is part of the global energy market. If oil supplies are cut off or
impeded in the Middle East (or elsewhere) the U.S. will still be affected, because the rest of
the global marketplace will still need to buy oil. That means that the price of oil for
Americans will still rise. All of which is to say that true energy independence isn't as simple
as pumping more hydrocarbons at home. That may relieve both American and global
energy pressures to a certain degree, but only in a transitional sense. It is not a real
solution. A real solution would be a renewable energy economy in which energy and
transportation are fuelled by local sunlight, wind, and water. If you're capturing the bulk of
your energy needs on your rooftop, driving an electric car, and storing excess power in a
battery in your garage, you're far more insulated against geopolitical turmoil in oilproducing regions.
Reliance on domestic oil doesn’t shield price shocks
GAL LUFT & ANNE KORIN july/august 2012 (Gal Luft and Anne Korin are co-directors
of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) and senior advisers to the United
States Energy Security Council., “The Folly of Energy Independence” http://www.the-americaninterest.com/article.cfm?piece=1266)
Cost, Not Volume¶ A¶ s we have already noted, dreams of autarky in oil still dominate U.S. energy policy discourse. The pledge to cut
a third of oil imports by 2020 is at the core of President Obama’s energy policy, and talk about reducing imports from the Middle East continues
to be one of the best applause lines of all presidential and congressional candidates across the political spectrum. ¶ This rhetoric
relies
on two false premises. First, America is not dependent on the Persian Gulf for its oil supply.
Imports from the Persian Gulf never exceeded 15 percent of total U.S. petroleum consumption; currently, the figure stands at 9 percent. And
again, these numbers are really nominal, since oil is fungible and swap arrangements the oil companies employ to reduce transportation costs
make it impossible to know where any given barrel of oil really came from. Most U.S. oil imports originate in North America. ¶ Second, even
if all U.S. oil imports originated from Canada and Mexico, America would be just as
vulnerable to the impact of oil price spikes due to volatility in the Persian Gulf and other
unstable regions as it is today . Self-sufficiency in oil would not, indeed cannot, shield U.S.
consumers from oil price shocks.
In 2008, when oil prices reached an historic high, the United Kingdom produced most of
the oil it needed, yet the price spike affected its citizens just as much as it did Americans. When
the price of oil spikes, it
spikes for everyone. The United States imports hardly any oil from Libya, but when the 2011 Libyan
upheavals caused a supply disruption, American motorists were as affected by the resulting $25 per
barrel price hike as the motorists of Libya’s major oil purchasers. ¶ The inability to keep the price of oil at bay, not
the volume of imports, is the crux of America’s vulnerability. But—and this is the critical yet still generally
unrecognized key to the solving the energy puzzle—the price is what it is because virtually all the cars and
trucks in the world are unable to run on anything but petroleum-based fuels. Oil faces no
competition from other energy commodities in the sector from which its strategic importance stems, namely transportation. Since
consumers are unable to choose between different commodities, suppliers do not need to
compete for market share by increasing production capacity and supplying lower prices. And that, in turn, leads us to OPEC.
Plan is not sufficient to isolate the US from the global oil market and even if it
does prices will still reflect the international market
CBO may 2012 (congressional budget office, seems pretty qualled, “Energy Security¶ in the¶ United States”
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdf)
Attempts to isolate the United States from the global ¶ market for oil would almost certainly
fail, because ¶ demand for oil in the United States exceeds domestic ¶ supply and because
isolation would require a fundamentally different energy market, with restrictions on prices ¶
and exports that would probably not be feasible (see ¶ Box 1). Unless all imports and exports of oil
were ¶ banned, any imports of oil from abroad—such as from ¶ Canada or Mexico—would still allow the
world price to ¶ be transmitted through such countries to the United ¶ States. The United States’ trading partners
would choose ¶ to sell oil to the United States only when the U.S. price ¶ was higher than the world price (causing the U.S. price to ¶ fall toward
the world price) and deliver it elsewhere when ¶ the U.S. price was lower than the world price (causing the ¶ U.S. price to rise toward the world
price). Without
such imports from abroad, demand for oil in the United States ¶ could be met
only with prices sufficiently high to cause ¶ demand to fall to the level of domestic
production.
EXT – No Shocks
Consensus of economists agree that oil shocks are exaggerated
Kahn 11 (Jeremy, 2/13, “Crude reality”, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/02/13/crude_reality/)
There is no denying that the 1973 oil shock was bad — the stock market crashed in response to the sudden spike in
oil prices, inflation jumped, and unemployment hit levels not seen since the Great Depression. The 1979 oil shock also had
deep and lasting economic effects. Economists now argue, however, that the economic
damage was more directly attributable to bad government policy than to the actual supply
shortage. Among those who have studied past oil shocks is Ben Bernanke, the current chairman of the
Federal Reserve. In 1997, Bernanke analyzed the effects of a sharp rise in fuel prices during three
different oil shocks — 1973-75, 1980-82, and 1990-91. He concluded that the major economic damage
was caused not by the oil price increases but by the Federal Reserve overreacting and
sharply increasing interest rates to head off what it wrongly feared would be a wave of
inflation. Today, his view is accepted by most mainstream economists. Gholz and Press are
hardly the only researchers who have concluded that we are far too worried about oil
shocks. The economy also faced a large increase in prices in the mid-2000s, largely as the result of surging demand from emerging markets,
with no ill effects. “If you take any economics textbook written before 2000, it would talk about
what a calamitous effect a doubling in oil prices would have,” said Philip Auerald, an associate professor at
George Mason University’s School of Public Policy who has written about oil shocks and their implications for US foreign policy. “Well, we
had a price quadrupling from 2003 and 2007 and nothing bad happened.” (The recession of 2008-9
was triggered by factors unrelated to oil prices.) Auerald also points out that when Hurricane Katrina
slammed into the Gulf Coast in 2005, it did tremendous damage to offshore oil rigs,
refineries, and pipelines, as well as the rail lines and roads that transport petroleum to the
rest of the country. The United States gets about 12 percent of its oil from the Gulf of
Mexico region, and, more significantly, 40 percent of its refining capacity is located there.
“Al Qaeda times 1,000 could not deliver this sort of blow to the oil industry’s physical
infrastructure,” Auerald said. And yet the only impact was about five days of gas lines in
Georgia, and unusually high prices at the pump for a few weeks.
EXT – No Impact to Shocks
The economy had adapted since the 70s—oil shocks no longer have a
substantial impact.
Blanchard & Gali 7
Oliver Blanchard and Jordi Gali, 11/8/2007. The Class of 1941 Professor of Economics, is a former MIT economics department head and
Research Associate in the NBER's Program on Economic Fluctuations and Growth and the Program on Monetary Economics. “The
Macroeconomic Effects of Oil Shocks: Why are the 2000s So Different from the 1970s?” National Bureau of Economic Research,
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13368.
Since the 1970s, and at least until
recently, macroeconomists have viewed changes in the price of oil as
as an important source of economic fluc- tuations, as well as a paradigm of a global shock,
likely to affect many economies simultaneously. Such a perception is largely due to the two
episodes of low growth, high unemployment, and high inflation that char- acterized most industrialized
economies in the mid and late 1970s. Con- ventional accounts of those episodes of stagflation blame them on the large increases in
the price of oil triggered by the Yom Kippur war in 1973, and the Iranian revolution of 1979, respectively.1 The events of the past
decade, however, seem to call into question the rel- evance of oil price changes as a significant
source of economic fluctuations. The reason: Since the late 1990s, the global economy has
experienced two oil shocks of sign and magnitude comparable to those of the 1970s but, in
contrast with the latter episodes, GDP growth and inflation have remained relatively stable
in much of the industrialized world. Our goal in this paper is to shed light on the nature of the apparent changes in the
macroeconomic effects of oil shocks, as well as on some of its possible causes. Disentangling the factors behind those changes is obviously key to
assessing the extent to which the episodes of stagflation of the 1970s can reoccur in response to future oils shocks and, if so, to understanding the
role that monetary policy can play in order to mitigate their adverse effects. One plausible hypothesis is that the effects of the increase in the price
of oil proper have been similar across episodes, but have coincided in time with large shocks of a very different nature (e.g. large rises in other
commodity prices in the 1970s, high productivity growth and world demand in the 2000s). That coincidence could significantly distort any
assessment of the impact of oil shocks based on a simple observation of the movements in aggregate variables around each episode. In order to
evaluate this hypothesis one must isolate the component of macroeconomic fluctuations associated with exogenous changes in the price of oil. To
do so, we identify and estimate the effects of an oil price shock using structural VAR techniques. We report and compare estimates for different
sample periods and discuss how they have changed over time. We follow two alternative approaches. The first one is based on a large VAR, and
allows for a break in the sample in the mid 1980s. The second approach is based on rolling bivariate VARs, including the price of oil and one
other variable at a time. The latter approach allows for a gradual change in the estimated effects of oil price shocks, without imposing a discrete
break in a single period. Two conclusions clearly emerge from this analysis: First, there
were indeed other adverse shocks at
work in the 1970s; the price of oil explains only part of the stagflation episodes of the 1970s.
Second, and importantly, the effects of a given change in the price of oil have changed substantially
over time. Our estimates point to much larger effects of oil price shocks on inflation and activity in the early part of the sample, i.e. the one
that includes the two oil shock episodes of the 1970s. Our basic empirical findings are summarized graphically in Figure 1 (we postpone a
description of the underlying assumptions to Section 3). The left-hand graph shows the responses of U.S. (log) GDP and the (log) CPI to a 10
percent increase in the price of oil, estimated using pre-1984 data. The right-hand graph displays the corresponding responses, based on post1984 data. As the Figure makes clear, the response of both variables has become more muted in the more recent period. As we show below, that
pattern can also be observed for other variables (prices and quantities) and many (though not all) other countries considered. In sum, the
evidence suggests that economies face an improved trade-off in the more recent period, in
the face of oil price shocks of a similar magnitude.
Oil shocks don’t destroy the economy—wage flexibility, strong monetary
policy and reduced dependence make our economy less vulnerable.
Blanchard & Gali 7
Oliver Blanchard and Jordi Gali, 11/8/2007. The Class of 1941 Professor of Economics, is a former MIT economics department head and
Research Associate in the NBER's Program on Economic Fluctuations and Growth and the Program on Monetary Economics. “The
Macroeconomic Effects of Oil Shocks: Why are the 2000s So Different from the 1970s?” National Bureau of Economic Research,
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13368.
First, real
wage rigidities may have decreased over time. The presence of real wage rigidities
generates a trade off between stabilization of inflation and stabilization of the output gap. As
a result, and in response to an adverse supply shock and for a given money rule, inflation will generally
rise more and output will decline more, the slower real wages adjust. A trend towards more
flexible labor markets, including more flexible wages, could thus explain the smaller impact of the
more recent oil shocks. Second, changes in the way monetary policy is conducted may be
responsi- 4 ble for the differential response of the economy to the oil shocks. In partic- ular, the stronger commitment by
central banks to maintaining a low and stable rate of inflation, reflected in the widespread
adoption of more or less explicit inflation targeting strategies, may have led to an
improvement in the policy tradeoff that make it possible to have a smaller impact of a given
oil price increase on both inflation and output simultaneously. Third, the share of oil in the economy may have
declined sufficiently since the 1970s to account for the decrease in the effects of its price
changes. Under that hypothesis, changes in the price of oil have increasingly turned into a sideshow, with no significant macroeconomic
effects (not unlike fluc- tuations in the price of caviar).
Oil shocks don’t hurt the US economy- Market adaption and lack of
dependence on Persia Gulf Oil
Kahn, 11 (2/13/11, Jeremy, Boston Globe, “Crude reality”, http://articles.boston.com/2011-02-13/news/29336191_1_crude-oil-shocksmajor-oil-producers )
But a
growing body of economic research suggests that this conventional view of oil shocks is
wrong. The US economy is far less susceptible to interruptions in the oil supply than
previously assumed, according to these studies. Scholars examining the recent history of oil
disruptions have found the worldwide oil market to be remarkably adaptable and
surprisingly quick at compensating for shortfalls. Economists have found that much of the damage
once attributed to oil shocks can more persuasively be laid at the feet of bad government
policies. The US economy, meanwhile, has become less dependent on Persian Gulf oil and less
sensitive to changes in crude prices overall than it was in 1973.
Oil markets adapt to shocks and internally stabilize – no negative effects
Gholz and Press, 10 * Associate professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, AND **
Associate professor of government at Dartmouth College and coordinator of War and Peace Studies at the John Sloan Dickey Center for
International Understanding (Eugene and Daryl G., Security Studies, “Protecting “The Prize”: Oil and the U.S. National Interest”, 19: 3, 453 —
485 http://www.luiss.it/mes/wp content/uploads/2010/02/SecurityStudies_ProtectingThePrizeOilandtheUSNationalInterest.pdf )
Note: Tables removed
HOW MARKETS RESPOND TO SHOCKS Each day, twenty-four million barrels of crude are pumped from the Persian Gulf region, most of
which are loaded onto supertankers to feed refineries around the world.8 The immediate effect of a major supply disruption in the Gulf would
leave one or more consumers wondering where their next expected oil delivery will come from. But the
oil market, like most others,
adjusts to shocks via a variety of mechanisms. These adaptations do not require careful
coordination, unusually wise stewardship, or benign motives. Individuals’ drive for profit triggers most of
them. The details of each oil shock are unique, so each crisis triggers a different mix of adaptations. Some adjustments would begin within
hours of a disruption; others would take weeks or longer to implement. Similarly, some could only supply the market for short periods of time,
and others could be sustained indefinitely. But the
net result of the adaptations softens the disruptions’
effects on consumers. Increased Production Any event that reduces oil supply—for example, a fire at a pumping
sta- tion in Kuwait or a labor strike in Venezuela—will
spur other producers around the world to increase
output. Disruptions draw new oil into the market through two distinct mechanisms. First, producers not
part of the OPEC cartel (including major players such as Russia, the United States, and Canada) increase output to
respond to short-term price spikes. Firms in these countries typically produce as much oil
as they can, as long as the expected price exceeds their costs.9 They will see an opportunity to
profit from the higher price during a spike, and so after a disruption, they pump more than
they did before. In most cases, these non-OPEC countries have only modest amounts of readyto-pump “spare capacity,” but their additional output can help eliminate temporary
shortages.10 The second mechanism is based on politics rather than economics: oil market shocks tend to disrupt
delicate cartel agreements, leading to increased global production.11 The purpose of cartels like
OPEC is to limit the total amount of product on the market. Members of a cartel agree to
produce less than they otherwise would, thereby raising the price. Not surprisingly, cartels rarely
function smoothly: billions of dollars are at stake as members squabble over total cartel
output and the size of each country’s assigned quota.12 Furthermore, whatever the cartel decides,
every member has a short-term incentive to cheat (and an even stronger incentive to suspect everyone else of
cheating).13 Although successful cartels can reduce output and enrich their members, the process is often acrimonious, and
disputes among members are common. The international negotiations among cartel members
facilitate adaptation to oil supply shocks for three reasons. The first is simply the raison
d’etre of any cartel: when members produce less than they could, they create spare
capacity. Cartel members can turn on that slack relatively quickly in response to a supply
disruption elsewhere. Second, because cartel mem- bers always have an incentive to cheat by
exceeding their output quota, cartel leaders like Saudi Arabia in OPEC usually maintain
significant slack capacity to discipline wayward members: too much cheating may arouse the leader
to flood the market, driving down prices for everyone.14 The cartel leader’s spare capacity is available to replace
barrels of supply lost in a disruption. Finally, oil shocks impede smooth cartel management.15 Global
production has dropped, so someone ought to replace it, but who? Each member will want a
share. When supply conditions change substantially, the cartel must reopen its delicate,
zero-sum negotiations, dividing shares among its members. Every reallocation is an opportunity for
disputes, and while the ne- gotiations proceed (often slowly), many members will act on their
incentive to exceed their pre-shock production quota. Furthermore, if the disruption is caused by
infighting among cartel members—as it was during the Iran-Iraq War and after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait—the odds of
a smooth, coordinated cartel response are slim.16 Because OPEC cartel members tend to
possess most of the world’s spare capacity, the breakdown of cartel discipline in the wake
of a shock can trigger major increases in global oil production.17 Of course, increased production alone is
no panacea for consumers. Spare capacity cannot be tapped instantly, and in rare circumstances, the
world’s producers max out their pumping capacity, leaving little slack for crises.18 But
market incentives and the political challenges of cartel management mitigate the
consequences of most disruptions.19
US economy is not dependent
Kahn, 11 (2/13/11, Jeremy, Boston Globe, “Crude reality”, http://articles.boston.com/2011-02-13/news/29336191_1_crude-oil-shocksmajor-oil-producers )
Compared to the 1970s, too, the
structure of the US economy offers better insulation from oil price
shocks. Today, the country uses half as much energy per dollar of gross domestic product as it
did in 1973, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration. Remarkably, the economy consumed less
total energy in 2009 than in 1997, even though its GDP rose and the population grew. When it comes
time to fill up at the pump, the average US consumer today spends less than 4 percent of
his or her disposable income on gasoline, compared with more than 6 percent in 1980. Oil,
though crucial,
is simply a smaller part of the economy than it once was.
Adaptation solves
Gholz and Press, 10 * Associate professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, AND **
Associate professor of government at Dartmouth College and coordinator of War and Peace Studies at the John Sloan Dickey Center for
International Understanding (Eugene and Daryl G., Security Studies, “Protecting “The Prize”: Oil and the U.S. National Interest”, 19: 3, 453 —
485 http://www.luiss.it/mes/wp content/uploads/2010/02/SecurityStudies_ProtectingThePrizeOilandtheUSNationalInterest.pdf )
Note: Tables removed
Many analyses
exaggerate America’s vulnerability to political shocks in the Persian Gulf region
because they underestimate the flexibility of the global economy. Producers, wholesalers,
shippers, and governments rapidly respond to disruptions, mitigating their effects on consumers. In
some respects the cartelized nature of the oil industry facilitates adaptation: cartels seek to
preserve spare capacity, and shocks tend to complicate cartel management, leading
members to exceed their quotas. These arguments find broad support in our case studies of
every major oil shock in the OPEC era.
Empirics go neg
Kahn, 11 (2/13/11, Jeremy, Boston Globe, “Crude reality”, http://articles.boston.com/2011-02-13/news/29336191_1_crude-oil-shocksmajor-oil-producers )
There is no denying that the 1973 oil shock was bad — the stock market crashed in response to the sudden spike in oil prices, inflation jumped,
and unemployment hit levels not seen since the Great Depression. The 1979 oil shock also had deep and lasting economic effects.
Economists now argue, however, that the economic damage was more directly attributable to
bad government policy than to the actual supply shortage. Among those who have studied past oil shocks is
Ben Bernanke, the current chairman of the Federal Reserve. In 1997, Bernanke analyzed the effects of a sharp rise in
fuel prices during three different oil shocks — 1973-75, 1980-82, and 1990-91. He concluded
that the major economic damage was caused not by the oil price increases but by the
Federal Reserve overreacting and sharply increasing interest rates to head off what it
wrongly feared would be a wave of inflation. Today, his view is accepted by most mainstream economists.
No impact to oil shocks
Schulz ‘6
(Max, Senior Fellow @ Manhattan Institute and Former Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary
of Energy, National Review, “Iran's Oil-Weapon Threat Rings Hollow”, 9-19, L/N)
Does Iran have us over a barrel? As the Iranian nuclear crisis worsens, the
mullahs in Tehran are trying to forestall American
or Israeli military action by threatening to use the "oil weapon." Last month Iran's top nuclear negotiator suggested the country
might pull from the world market the 2.5 million barrels of oil it exports daily -- a reprise of the Arab oil embargo of the early 1970s.
Another possibility Iran has proposed would be to
shut down the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping lane through which
other nations' Persian Gulf oil must pass. The implication is that such actions would set off a depth charge in the international
energy economy, so the U.S. and its allies should back down. Don't believe it. Certainly Iran's leaders are unhinged enough to try
making good on one of those two promises. Either
action would send oil soaring, perhaps well over $100 per
barrel. Gasoline would spike too, perhaps to $5 or $6 per gallon. The dirty little secret about Iran's threats, however, is though
they might cause some pain, they wouldn't cripple our economy. The American economic engine is too strong to be
brought to its knees by Iran's machinations, and the weapon Tehran threatens to wield is not as menacing as they would have us
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman noted recently that the United States could weather a hypothetical
Iranian oil disruption and foil Tehran's efforts at nuclear blackmail. The United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve
currently holds upward of 700 million barrels. The Bush administration would not hesitate to release oil from the
believe.
reserve if Iran closed its taps. That's the sort of leverage we didn't have during the 1973 energy crisis.
But the chief reason this is
not your father's oil embargo is that the
U.S. economy is much less susceptible to being harmed by an
oil shock today than it was during the 1970s. The economy is running at unparalleled strength. It has
demonstrated great resilience after taking blows from 9/11, last year's hurricanes, and the general
run-up in energy prices over the last five years brought on by increased demand from China and India. We take the hits,
absorb them, and move on with little substantial damage incurred. Moreover, the economy is less dependent on oil
today than during the Arab oil embargo. We truly are moving beyond the petroleum economy. More than 85
percent of the growth in U.S. energy demand in the last quarter century has been met by electricity, most notably in information
technology and telecom. Today, nearly
three of every five dollars of GDP come from industries and
services that run on electricity. In 1950, just one in five dollars of GDP was electric; the remaining 80 percent of
the economy was powered by petroleum. Oil is still vitally important to the American
economy, of course, but each year it gets a little less so. And each year, we become more insulated from the
sort of economic terrorism Tehran is proposing. While oil prices in excess of $100 per barrel would
undoubtedly hurt, particularly at first, the long-term damage would be nowhere as severe as
pessimists predict. None of this is to minimize the effect of rising energy prices, which harm consumers and businesses and
do have some drag on the economy. But the economic numbers month after month have continued to impress. Clearly skyrocketing
petroleum prices so far have not crippled the American economic engine.
Even in the worst case oil shocks real GDP would barely get dented
The Washington Times ‘7 (Helle Dale, “Stopping Iran; Don't ignore regime's vulnerabilities”, 725, L/N)
Players in the war game took several steps that mitigated the resulting energy shock within
weeks. Quick military action reopened the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. government employed
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Congress lifted tariffs on ethanol and temporarily eased regulatory burdens. In
addition, legislation to open up ANWR and offshore reserves west of Florida was considered. Even in the worst-case
scenario - when the oil shock would send prices of crude to $135 per barrel with the
resulting loss of one million U.S. jobs - these relatively modest government actions all but
nullified the crisis within six weeks. The resulting increase in the price of crude oil would be a mere $12 per barrel
and there would be no job loss. Real U.S. GDP would remain at baseline level and there would be no
change in disposable personal income. The lesson clearly is that U.S. government actions have as much to do with
the economic consequences of an oil shock as anything else, or even more. In other words, while Iran does hold a
set of picture cards in this energy game, it may not hold the winning hand if we play our
own cards correctly. Furthermore, there is no doubt that sanctions already in place, imperfect though they are, have done
damage to the Iranian economy, and further sanctions cutting off the supply of equipment needed to keep the Iranian oil fields
producing at capacity would be crippling. Iraq had a very young population, high unemployment rates and practically no other
economic assets beyond its energy sector.
EXT – Drilling Bad for the Economy
Expanding offshore drilling would harm the US economy – poor investment,
harms coastal economies, and weather
Zipf 13. Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action Inc. Wall Street Journal. April
14, 2013. Should the U.S. Expand Offshore Oil Drilling?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324020504578398610851042612 //NM
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 clean-ocean 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 offense - Drilling doesn’t create jobs or help the economy any positive
effects are temporary
Zipf 13. Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action Inc. Wall Street Journal. April
14, 2013. Should the U.S. Expand Offshore Oil Drilling?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324020504578398610851042612 //NM
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 lo se 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.
AT: Jobs Internal Link
Not enough jobs are created
Krugman 12 (Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the OpEd Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton
University. Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from
MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International
Professor of Economics., 3/15/2012, "Natural Born Drillers",
www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/krugman-natural-borndrillers.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss)
Meanwhile, what
about jobs? I have to admit that I started laughing when I saw The Wall Street
Journal offering North Dakota as a role model. Yes, the oil boom there has pushed
unemployment down to 3.2 percent, but that’s only possible because the whole state has
fewer residents than metropolitan Albany — so few residents that adding a few thousand jobs in the
state’s extractive sector is a really big deal. The comparable-sized fracking boom in
Pennsylvania has had hardly any effect on the state’s overall employment picture, because,
that many jobs are involved. And this tells us that giving the oil companies carte blanche isn’t
a serious jobs program. Put it this way: Employment in oil and gas extraction has risen more than
50 percent since the middle of the last decade, but that amounts to only 70,000 jobs, around
one-twentieth of 1 percent of total U.S. employment. So the idea that drill, baby, drill can cure our
in the end, not
jobs deficit is
basically a joke .
doesn’t solve unemployment – aff data biased, too small, too slow, steals from
other sectors,
Levi 11 (Michael Levi, CFR Energy Security and Climate Change Program Director, Senior
Fellow, 10/18/11, “New Energy Jobs Won't Solve the U.S. Unemployment Problem”,
www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136599/michael-levi/new-energy-jobs-wont-solve-the-usunemployment-problem)
U.S. President Barack Obama
and the leading Republican candidates for president don't agree on much, particularly when
it comes to jobs and energy. But they do appear to share a conviction that a vibrant energy sector is central to solving
the U.S. unemployment problem. Obama has put clean energy jobs at the center of his economic message. On the Republican
side, both Texas Governor Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, his rival, claim that the oil, gas, and coal industries is where the real future of American
job growth lies, contrasting their approach with one that has produced the recent Solyndra debacle. Alas, on the one point on which everyone
no doubt the energy sector could employ many more
Americans. But exactly how many matters. The Republican candidates have made bold and concrete predictions. Perry is
seemingly agrees, they
are all wrong. There is
running on his record of job creation in Texas, which included a big boost from the booming oil and gas sector employment. Romney claims that
expanded drilling could create 1.2 million energy jobs and that shale gas operations in the Northeast could add
another 280,000 and Perry offers similar numbers. This is an exaggeration. The American Petroleum Institute,
which is hardly an impartial arbiter (it is the oil industry lobby), projects that opening all
U.S. lands to drilling while loosening a range of regulations would create 400,000 new
energy-sector jobs and perhaps one million support and spinoff jobs by 2030. The real
potential for oil and gas jobs is smaller. For his part, Obama placed clean-energy jobs at the core of his economic recovery
plans, promising five million by 2030 if his energy plans were enacted into law. The Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning think tank
that is inclined to be favorable to the president, estimated that his plans could have actually created about 1.8 million jobs at clean-energy
businesses and their suppliers. Either way, Republicans and some Democrats have blocked most of the clean energy policies that the president
advocated. The problem is that even
if Obama, Perry, and Romney all had their way and, in fact, created millions of
energy sector jobs, these numbers would be incommensurate with the scale of the United States'
current employment challenge. In a country where 14 million job seekers are unemployed and an
additional 9.3 million are involuntarily working part time, energy jobs will not bridge the gap.
And many, if not most, of the promised jobs -- whether in oil drilling or turbine
manufacturing -- would take more than a decade to materialize. Setting aside such problems, the full
complement of jobs promised by the American Petroleum Institute and the Center for American Progress
would tweak unemployment by about one percent. All of this also fails to mention that in the
longer term, many if not most of the new jobs would come at the expense of employment in
other sectors, pushing those job creation numbers down even further. The underwhelming numbers
should not be surprising. After all, energy production is not a large part of the U.S. economy. The mining
sector -- which includes oil, gas, and coal production -- makes up only 1.9 percent of U.S. GDP. The utilities
sector, which includes both clean and traditional energy production as well as a wide range of other activities, adds another 1.9
percent. Motor vehicle manufacturing accounts for 0.9 percent more. This is nothing to
scoff at -- in real terms it means nearly a trillion dollars per year -- but national prosperity will not come from jobs
growth in sectors that collectively make up less than five percent of the economy.
Doesn’t solve jobs – they only cause job shifting and structural factors are key
Levi 12 – Senior Fellow (at CFR) for Energy and the Environment and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change (Michael,
July/August, “Think Again: The American Energy Boom” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/18/think_again_the_american_energy_boom?page=full)
Jacome
"The U.S. Energy Boom Will Create Millions of New Jobs."
Overstated. The U.S. oil and gas boom has come at an auspicious time. With record numbers of Americans out of work, hydrocarbon production is helping
create much-needed jobs in communities from Pennsylvania to North Dakota. Shale gas production alone accounted for an estimated 600,000 U.S. jobs as of 2010,
according to the consultancy IHS CERA.
In a deeply depressed economy, new development can put
people to work without reducing employment elsewhere. That's why boom states have benefited massively in recent years.
The same is not true, though, in a more normal economy. Unemployment rates are typically
determined by fundamental factors such as the ease of hiring and firing and the match between
skills that employers need and that workers have. The oil and gas boom won't change these
much.
It's much harder, though, to extrapolate into the future.
we should be skeptical about rosy projections of millions of new jobs. Wood MacKenzie, for example,
claims that the energy boom could deliver as many as 1.1 million jobs by 2020, while Citigroup forecasts a whopping 3.6 million. Unless the U.S.
economy remains deep in the doldrums for another decade, these will mostly come at the
expense of jobs elsewhere.
That's why
EXT – No War
Economic decline doesn’t cause war
Jervis, 11 (Professor PolSci Columbia, ’11 (Robert, December, “Force in Our Times”
Survival, Vol 25 No 4, p 403-425)
Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful
world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one
example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening
of the current economic difficulties,
which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor
economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great
enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so
much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed – states that were more internally interdependent
than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even
if the more extreme versions of
free trade and economic liberalism become discredited, it is hard to see how without
building on a preexisting high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would
come to believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking
others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war?
While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply
(correctly, in my view) that the
very fact that we have seen such a sharp economic down-turn without
anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution shows that even if bad times bring
about greater economic conflict, it will not make war thinkable.
Economic collapse doesn’t cause instability
Zakaria, 9 (Fareed Zakaria was named editor of Newsweek International in October 2000,
overseeing all Newsweek editions abroad, December 12, 2009, “The Secrets of Stability,”
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/12 /11/the-secrets-of-stability.html)
Others predicted that these economic shocks would lead to political instability and violence
in the worst-hit countries. At his confirmation hearing in February, the new U.S. director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis
Blair, cautioned the Senate that "the financial crisis and global recession are likely to produce a wave of economic crises in emerging-market
nations over the next year." Hillary Clinton endorsed this grim view. And she was hardly alone. Foreign Policy ran a cover story predicting
Of one thing everyone was sure: nothing would ever be the
same again. Not the financial industry, not capitalism, not globalization. One year later, how much has the world
really changed? Well, Wall Street is home to two fewer investment banks (three, if you count Merrill Lynch). Some regional banks have
serious unrest in several emerging markets.
gone bust. There was some turmoil in Moldova and (entirely unrelated to the financial crisis) in Iran. Severe problems remain, like high
unemployment in the West, and we face new problems caused by responses to the crisis—soaring debt and fears of inflation. But overall,
things look nothing like they did in the 1930s. The predictions of economic and political
collapse have not materialized at all.
AT: Peak Oil
No impact to peak oil or $125 a barrel
Luskin 3/29 (Donald L, chief investment officer at Trend Macrolytics LLC and the co-author with Andrew Greta of "I Am John Galt,"
out in May by Wiley & Sons, “Oil Prices Won't Kill the Recovery”, 2011,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576200392973262006.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Will the spike in oil prices emanating from instability in the Middle East be enough to
derail the U.S. economic recovery, just when it's finally building up a head of steam? Surely it's not helpful. But while
our collective memory and intuition about oil shocks may cause us to fear the worst, a clear-eyed
look at the data suggests that oil prices may have to rise considerably higher to trigger a
U.S. recession. The oil shocks of the 1970s and early '80s, which caused deep recessions,
were so epochal that we're conditioned to assume that any rise in oil prices is bad for
growth and any fall is good. Yet historical data tells us that most oil-price changes are not
correlated with future changes in real output growth. For example, oil prices rose steadily
throughout the mid-2000s while growth remained strong. Where oil prices do matter to
growth is in extremis, in those rare cases when an extraordinary and rapid oil-price change creates an economic shock. But it's
difficult to come up with a simple rule that tells us when an oil shock is enough to cause a
recession—or not. Crude oil prices as high as $147 a barrel in the summer of 2008, for instance,
aren't seen as the cause of the Great Recession. Most observers would cite instead the fall of Lehman Brothers and the
banking crisis that immediately followed, events that occurred at roughly the same time. Let's just accept that oil shocks
matter. Is today's oil price of about $104 a barrel in the U.S. (and $115 globally) a shock? To be a shock,
it has to be big. And "big" is a matter of context. Yes, today's oil prices are more than 30% higher than
they were a year ago. That sounds big. But at the same time, they are more than 30% lower
than they were less than three years ago. That's big, too, but in the opposite direction. Which context counts?
Research by economist James Hamilton of the University of California, San Diego suggests that oil prices
imperil the economy when they reach a new three-year high. Steven Kopits, managing director of the energy
consulting firm Douglas-Westwood, says the overall economy is threatened when the 12-month average oil price exceeds the year-ago 12-month
average price by more than half. Below those levels consumer and investor expectations aren't sufficiently disrupted to make a difference.
Both conditions are very far from being triggered at today's prices. To be a shock, it has to
be a surprise, and in one sense the current situation is: Despite all the pessimistic narratives that have overhung the economy during the
last six quarters of recovery—housing double-dip, insolvent states and municipalities, collapse of the euro zone, real estate bubble in China, and
so on—virtually nobody was predicting that the Middle East would be ept with contagious regime change spread via Facebook and Twitter. That
said, should
anyone really be surprised to learn that the Middle East is politically volatile?
No, and things there might get crazier. But if the history of the region has taught us anything, it is that whoever controls
the oil always eventually ends up selling it to the developed world, often despite their ravings about the developed world's imperialist evils. In
the meantime, Saudi Arabia has committed to make up for any transitory shortfalls.
Pumping an additional one million barrels a day would not be a stretch for the Saudis—doing
so would merely bring the Kingdom's production levels back up to mid-2008 levels. So even if we now face a shock, it will
be transitory, and it will be buffered. That's why, for all the uncertainty, oil is now $104 a
barrel, not $1,000 a barrel. More importantly, the U.S. economy is today well-positioned to
absorb an oil spike without experiencing it as an oil shock. First, we're nowhere near peak
oil consumption, which we hit in August 2005 at 21.7 million barrels per day. We're now 9% below that, even
though consumption has recovered substantially since its worst levels of the Great Recession in September 2008.
The last three recessions—those that started in 1990, 2001 and 2008—began only after oil consumption
reached new peak levels. Economies in the early stages of recovery, like ours today, are less
vulnerable to oil shocks than those in the late stages of expansion. As a business cycle matures, the
economy experiences diminishing returns from any given factor of production—labor, credit, oil or anything else. When a recovery is still new,
large gains can be levered from relatively modest increases in inputs, so the economy can afford to pay more for those inputs. We've
also
grown much more efficient when it comes to energy consumption. It may come as a
surprise to many, but today in the U.S. we're consuming the same amount of crude oil that
we did 12 years ago and real output is more than 25% higher. For all the talk of our being the planet's most
villainous energy hog, we've become remarkably oil efficient. Finally, this oil spike is coming at a
fortuitous moment in American politics. President Obama, tacking to the political center after his party's selfdescribed "shellacking" in last year's midterm elections, said earlier this month that he wants to "increase
domestic oil production in the short and medium term." That may be the most shocking thing about this oil spike.
Hegemony Advantage
1NC Hegemony Advantage
Domestic oil doesn’t solve energy independence
CBO may 2012 (congressional budget office, seems pretty qualled, “Energy Security¶ in the¶ United States”
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdf)
The worldwide market for oil makes it almost ¶ impossible for a large country like the United States ¶ to
gain independence, or separation, from that ¶ market. In the United States, decisions about how ¶
much oil to import are made not by the government, ¶ but by private firms that extract, refine, and
sell ¶ products made from oil—for example, gasoline, ¶ diesel, and jet fuel—to households and businesses. ¶ Those private firms enter into trading
arrangements ¶ with other private firms or governments that produce ¶ oil based on the profitability and legality of such ¶ arrangements. For
example, private
U.S. firms ¶ produce much of the oil exported by Chad, but they ¶ are
prohibited from purchasing oil from Iran because ¶ of U.S. trade sanctions against that
country. Despite ¶ those sanctions, U.S. households and businesses still ¶ benefit from Iran’s
production of oil as long as Iran is ¶ able to sell its oil to other countries and firms that, in ¶
turn, require less oil from elsewhere in the world. ¶ (The largest importers of Iranian oil in 2008 were ¶ Japan, China,
and India.)
At best we can only be independent for 10 years
Glenn Williams 11/27/12 (aol energy “Not So Fast on Energy Independence”
http://energy.aol.com/2012/11/27/not-so-fast-on-energy-independence/)
politicians and analysts have been confusing the energy independence issue by blending US data with North
American data to make numbers more attractive. Nevertheless, domestic oil production has increased and domestic
consumption has decreased. The net result is an apparent trajectory towards oil independence.¶ But that
trajectory is an illusion . The bipartisan American Security Project (ASP) warns the real message behind IEA's World Energy Outlook is a very different
picture than most headlines suggest. It turns out most of IEA's coverage of oil independence focused on a handful of the report's nearly 700 pages. According
to ASP, the majority of IEA's report is a warning against unchecked exploitation of US oil. Specifically, IEA warns:¶ The United States' ability to
lead the world in oil production is realistically limited to between five and ten years at most.¶ In
order to achieve production levels necessary to reach the status of number one oil producer, the US would have had to excavate
almost all of its fossil fuel reserves by 2020.¶ Third, according to IEA's main scenario, which assumes an amount of efficiency
policy that is yet to be implemented, the US could still be consuming 5.5 million barrels per day more than
it is producing in 2020, when the oil boom peaked.¶ The news that the US will become energy
independent by 2017 is simply not a fact. For the US, energy independence is an unlikely goal. In
fact, it could provide more harm than good. But the recent success in natural gas has the nation moving in the direction of
Some
independence and that achievement has benefitted the US economy.
Self-sufficiency can’t solve national security issues – global market and
aggressive petrostates
Jeffrey D. Colgan ’13, Assistant professor American University, PhD, MPP, B. Engineering,
AU expertise in International oil politics, causes of war, international energy institutions,
resource curse, and political revolutions, Belfer Center for Science and National Affairs, "Oil,
Conflict, and U.S. National Interests",
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23517/oil_conflict_and_us_national_interests.htm
l
Understanding the eight mechanisms linking oil to international security can help
policymakers think beyond the much-discussed goal of energy security, defined as reliable
access to affordable fuel supplies. Achieving such an understanding is important in light of
recent changes in the United States. As hydraulic fracturing—"fracking"—of shale oil and gas
accelerates, energy imports are projected to decline, and North America could even achieve
energy independence, in the sense of low or zero net overall energy imports, in the next decade.
Yet the United States will continue to import large volumes of oil, and the world price of oil will
continue to affect it. Moreover, so long as the rest of the world remains dependent on global
oil markets, the fracking revolution will do little to reduce many oil-related threats to
international security. The emergence of aggressive, revolutionary leaders in petrostates
would likely continue to pose threats to regional security. Petrostates will continue to be
weakly institutionalized and thus subject to civil wars, creating the kind of security
problems that demand responses by the international community, as occurred in Libya in
2011. Petro-financed insurgent groups such as Hezbollah will persist, as will threats to the
shipping lanes and oil transit routes that supply important U.S. allies, such as Japan. In
sum, energy autarky is not the answer. Self-sufficiency will bring economic benefits to the
United States, but few gains for national security. So long as the oil market remains
globally integrated, national oil imports matter far less than total consumption. Rather than
viewing energy self-sufficiency as a panacea, the United States should contribute to
international security by making long-term investments in research and development to
reduce oil consumption and provide alternative fuel sources in the transportation sector. In
addition to the economic and environmental benefits of reducing oil consumption,
substantial evidence exists that military and security benefits will accrue from such
investments.
Doesn’t solve terror - US will still have a large foot print in the region
O’Sullivan, 13 (Professor International Affairs Harvard, 2-14-’13, Meghan, “’Energy
Independence’ Alone Won’t Boost U.S. Power” Bloomberg,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-14/-energy-independence-alone-won-t-boost-u-spower.html?alcmpid=view)
the U.S. energy boom won’t deliver the one geopolitical benefit Americans long for most: a
release from the Middle East. True, by 2020 the U.S. will be importing substantially less oil than it does today, and probably none of it will originate in the
Middle East. The U.S. will, however, remain invested in stability in that part of the world even if it
doesn’t consume a single drop of Middle Eastern oil. Interests other than energy, such as
terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the security of Israel and the well-being of more than more than 300 million Arabs, will
continue to be high on the U.S. agenda. The U.S. will continue to have enduring energy
interests in the Middle East, given that its allies and China -- the single largest engine of global economic growth -- will
become increasingly dependent on the Middle East in the years ahead. Even more important, because all oil is
No Independence Still, despite all this good news,
priced on a global market, a disruption in the Middle East will quickly filter back to the U.S. economy. Americans in 2020 may transmit less of their income abroad in the case of a surge in oil
prices, but a major increase in global prices caused by instability in the Middle East would be almost as destabilizing to the U.S. as it was when Uncle Sam secured much of its oil from Saudi
Arabia.
Status Quo Solves, Dependence Low Now
Zumbrun June 17th , 2014, Josh Zumbran , National Economics Corresp. For WSJ, “Upshot of Domestic Oil Boom: Fewer
Shocks”, Wall Street Journal, http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=385322 //RD
The latest spasm of violence in the Middle East has sent crude-oil prices climbing in recent
weeks, a familiar action-reaction that frequently has proved to be a drag on economic
growth. Yet that dynamic figures to ease in coming months and years as U.S. dependence
on Mideast oil is, by a variety of measures, at a generational nadir . In the current flare-up of unrest,
Islamist militants have swept across northern Iraq, threatening Baghdad and spurring fears that violence could disrupt the country's 2.7 million
barrels a day in exports. Amid this, the U.S. crude-oil benchmark on the New York Mercantile Exchange has climbed to around $107 a barrel, the
highest level since September. The oil-price instability has been playing out broadly since late 2010, when a string of popular political revolutions
across the Middle East drove up the price of crude to $113 a barrel from $85 over five months. Much has changed since the so-called Arab Spring
to alter the U.S. energy picture. Advanced technologies such as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, have boosted U.S. crude-oil production by 47%
since late 2010. Domestic
U.S. oil production in October surpassed imports for the first time in
nearly two decades, putting slack into the global oil market and making more crude available at lower prices to
countries like China and India. Canada, too, has made great gains in oil production, so that the U.S. now imports about as much oil from its
northern neighbor as from all of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, meaning that
the Middle East's
importance to the U.S. energy supply has shrunk. Better fuel economy has also left many
consumers less sensitive to oil prices. For model year 2013, vehicles had average mileage of 24 miles a gallon, up 6% from
2010 and 22% from a decade ago. "The U.S. is less vulnerable to oil shocks ," said Brian Levitt, senior
economist at OppenheimerFunds. " Over time, there's going to be less and less vulnerability to events
in the Middle East."
That's not to say the U.S. is invulnerable. The nation still imports more than 7 million barrels a day of crude oil,
and for many Americans, the amount of gasoline they consume is largely determined by the length of their commute. Higher gas prices—now at
a national average of $3.69 a gallon, up 11% since the start of the year, according to the Energy Information Administration—can take a bite
from consumer spending elsewhere. An
increase of just $10 a barrel in the price of oil over three months
would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by about 0.2 percentage point, according to Joseph
LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank. Higher oil prices are "a risk factor and one that we're taking very
seriously," said Jason Furman, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers,
speaking Tuesday at a CFO Network event hosted by The Wall Street Journal. Increased domestic oil production
and more-efficient cars mean the U.S. is more insulated from oil shocks than in past decades , he said,
"but no one is fully insulated." Still, while climbing oil prices would hurt U.S. consumers, any increase would benefit U.S. energy producers,
providing a partial offset for the overall U.S. economy, according to Jason Schenker, the president of Prestige Economics in Austin, Texas.
"Because we're importing less, the risks to a widening trade deficit are somewhat diminished," he
said, referring to the reduced need to import foreign oil. And there are potentially gains "from a corporate-profit standpoint" now that more U.S.
firms and workers stand to gain when oil prices rise.
Data disproves hegemony impacts
Fettweis, 11 (Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University,
9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy,
30:316–332, EBSCO)
It is perhaps worth noting that there
is no evidence to support a direct relationship between the relative level of
U.S. activism and international stability. In fact, the limited data we do have suggest the opposite
may be true. During the 1990s, the United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United
States was spending $100 billion less on defense in real terms than it had in 1990.51 To internationalists,
defense hawks and believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible “peace dividend” endangered both national and global security. “No
serious analyst of American military capabilities,” argued Kristol and Kagan, “doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet
America’s responsibilities to itself and to world peace.”52 On the other hand, if the pacific trends
were not based upon U.S.
hegemony but a strengthening norm against interstate war, one would not have expected an
increase in global instability and violence. The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world grew
more peaceful while the U nited S tates cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security
was endangered by a less-capable United States military, or at least none took any action that would
suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums, no security
dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races, and no regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing
presence of the U.S. military was diminished. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing concern, despite the
reduction in U.S. capabilities. Most of all, the United States and its allies were no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut its military
spending under President Clinton, and kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped the spending back up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that
the two are unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are insufficient to disprove a connection between overall U.S. actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably
argue that spending is not the only or even the best indication of hegemony, and that it is instead U.S. foreign political and security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was
significantly altered during this period, instability should not have been expected. Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability could believe that relative rather than absolute spending is
decisive in bringing peace. Although the United States cut back on its spending during the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. However,
even if it is true that
either U.S. commitments or relative spending account for global pacific trends, then at the very least stability can
evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words, even if one can be allowed to argue in the alternative for a moment
and suppose that there
is in fact a level of engagement below which the United States cannot drop without
increasing international disorder, a rational grand strategist would still recommend cutting back
on engagement and spending until that level is determined. Grand strategic decisions are never
final; continual adjustments can and must be made as time goes on. Basic logic suggests that the United States ought to spend the
minimum amount of its blood and treasure while seeking the maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of stability is as stable as
many believe it to be, no increase in conflict would ever occur irrespective of U.S. spending, which would save untold trillions for an increasingly
debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth noting that if opposite trends had unfolded, if other states had reacted to news of cuts in U.S. defense
spending with more aggressive or insecure behavior, then internationalists would surely argue that their expectations had been fulfilled.
If
increases in conflict would have been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist
strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should at least pose a problem. As it
stands, the only evidence we have regarding the likely systemic reaction to a more restrained
U nited S tates suggests that the current peaceful trends are unrelated to U.S. military spending.
Evidently the rest of the world can operate quite effectively without the presence of a global
policeman. Those who think otherwise base their view on faith alone.
No risk of nuclear terrorism – technically impossible
Michael, 12 (Professor Nuclear Counterprolif and Deterrence at Air Force Counterprolif Center,
’12 (George, March, “Strategic Nuclear Terrorism and the Risk of State Decapitation” Defence
Studies, Vol 12 Issue 1, p 67-105, T&F Online)
Despite the alarming prospect of nuclear terrorism, the obstacles to obtaining such capabilities
are formidable. There are several pathways that terrorists could take to acquire a nuclear device. Seizing an intact nuclear weapon would be the most direct
method. However, neither nuclear weapons nor nuclear technology has proliferated to the degree that
some observers once feared. Although nuclear weapons have been around for over 65 years, the so-called nuclear club stands at only nine
members. 72 Terrorists could attempt to purloin a weapon from a nuclear stockpile; however, absconding with a nuclear weapon would
be problematical because of tight security measures at installations.¶ Alternatively, a terrorist group
could attempt to acquire a bomb through an illicit transaction, but there is no real well-developed
black market for illicit nuclear materials. Still, the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons around the world presents the risk of theft and
diversion. 73 In 1997, the Russian General, Alexander Lebed, alleged that 84 ‘suitcase’ bombs were missing from the Russian military arsenal, but later recanted his
the
financial requirements for a transaction involving nuclear weapons would be very high, as states
have spent millions and billions of dollars to obtain their arsenals. 76 Furthermore, transferring such
sums of money could raise red flags, which would present opportunities for authorities to
uncover the plot. When pursuing nuclear transactions, terrorist groups would be vulnerable to sting operations. 77¶ Even if terrorists
acquired an intact nuclear weapon, the group would still have to bypass or defeat various
safeguards, such as permissive action links (PALs), and safing, arming, fusing, and firing (SAFF) procedures. Both US and
Russian nuclear weapons are outfitted with complicated physical and electronic locking
mechanisms. 78 Nuclear weapons in other countries are usually stored partially disassembled,
which would make purloining a fully functional weapon very challenging. 79¶ Failing to acquire a nuclear
statements. 74 American officials generally remain unconvinced of Lebed’s story insofar as they were never mentioned in any Soviet war plans. 75 Presumably,
weapon, a terrorist group could endeavor to fabricate its own Improvised Nuclear Device (IND). For years, the US government has explored the possibility of a
clandestine group fabricating a nuclear weapon. The so-called Nth Country Experiment examined the technical problems facing a nation that endeavored to build a
small stockpile of nuclear weapons. Launched in 1964, the experiment sought to determine whether a minimal team –in this case, two young American physicists with
PhDs and without nuclear-weapons design knowledge –could design a workable nuclear weapon with a militarily significant yield. After three man-years of effort, the
two novices succeeded in a hypothetical test of their device. 80 In 1977, the US Office of Technology Assessment concluded that a small terrorist group could develop
and detonate a crude nuclear device without access to classified material and without access to a great deal of technological equipment. Modest machine shop facilities
Bethe, the
Nobel laureate who worked on the Manhattan Project, once calculated that a minimum of six
highly-trained persons representing the right expertise would be required to fabricate a nuclear
device. 82 A hypothetical scenario developed by Peter Zimmerman, a former chief scientist for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and Jeffrey G.
could be contracted for purposes of constructing the device. 81 ¶ Numerous experts have weighed in on the workability of constructing an IND. Hans
Lewis, the former executive director of the Managing the Atom Project at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, concluded that a
The most crucial step in the IND pathway
is acquiring enough fissile material for the weapon. According to some estimates, roughly 25 kilograms of
weapons-grade uranium or 8 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium would be required to
support a self-sustaining fission chain reaction. 84 It would be virtually impossible for a terrorist group to create its own fissile
team of 19 persons could build a nuclear device in the United States for about $10 million. 83 ¶
material. Enriching uranium, or producing plutonium in a nuclear reactor, is far beyond the scope of any terrorist organization. 85 However, the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), which maintains a database, confirmed 1,562 incidents of smuggling encompassing trade in nuclear materials or radioactive sources. Fifteen
the total of all known thefts of HEU around the
world between 1993 and 2006 amounted to less than eight kilograms, far short of the estimated
minimum 25 kilograms necessary for a crude improvised nuclear device. 87 An amount of fissile material adequate
incidents involved HEU or plutonium. 86 Be that as it may, according to the IAEA,
for a workable nuclear device would be difficult to procure from one source or in one transaction. However, terrorists could settle on less demanding standards.
According to an article in Scientific American, a nuclear device could be fabricated with as little as 60 kilograms of HEU (defined as concentrated to levels of 20
percent for more of the uranium 235 isotope). 88 Although enriching uranium is well nigh impossible for terrorist groups, approximately 1,800 tons of HEU was
created during the Cold War, mostly by the United States and the Soviet Union. 89 Collective efforts, such as the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the G-8
Partnership against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, have done much to secure nuclear weapons and fissile materials,
but the job is far from complete. 90 And other problems are on the horizon. For instance, the number of nuclear reactors is projected to double by the end of the
century, though many, if not most, will be fueled with low-enriched uranium (LEU). With this development, comes the risk of diversion as HEU and plutonium
stockpiles will be plentiful in civilian sectors. 91¶ Plutonium is more available around the world than HEU and smuggling plutonium would be relatively easy insofar
Constructing an IND from plutonium, though, would be much
more challenging insofar as it would require the more sophisticated implosion-style design that
would require highly trained engineers working in well-equipped labs. 93 But, if an implosion device does not
as it commonly comes in two-pound bars or gravel-like pellets. 92
detonate precisely as intended, then it would probably be more akin to a radiological dispersion device, rather than a mushroom. Theoretically, plutonium could be
used in a gun-assembly weapon, but the detonation would probably result in an unimpressive fizzle, rather than a substantial explosion with a yield no greater than 10
even assuming that fissile material
could be acquired, the terrorist group would still need the technical expertise to complete the
to 20 tons of TNT, which would still be much greater than one from a conventional explosive. 94 ¶ But
required steps to assemble a nuclear device. Most experts believe that constructing a gun-assembly weapon would pose no significant
technological barriers. 95 Luis Alvarez once asserted that a fairly high-level nuclear explosion could be occasioned just by dropping one piece of weapons-grade
the hurdles that a
terrorist group would have to overcome to build or acquire a nuclear bomb are very high. If
states that aspire to obtain nuclear capability face serious difficulties, it would follow that it
would be even more challenging for terrorist groups with far fewer resources and a without a
secure geographic area in which to undertake such a project. The difficulty of developing a viable nuclear weapon is
uranium onto another. He may, however, have exaggerated the ease with which terrorists could fabricate a nuclear device. 96¶ In sum,
illustrated by the case of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which after 20 years of effort and over ten billion dollars spent, failed to produce a functional bomb by the time the
country was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War. 97 Nevertheless, the quality of a nuclear device for a non-state entity would presumably be much lower as it would not be
necessary to meet the same quality standards of states when fabricating their nuclear weapons. Nor would the device have to be weaponized and mated with a delivery
In order to be successful, terrorists must succeed at each stage of the plot. With clandestine
activities, the probability of security leaks increases with the number of persons involved. 98 The plot
would require not only highly competent technicians, but also unflinching loyalty and discipline from the participants. A strong central authority
would be necessary to coordinate the numerous operatives involved in the acquisition and
delivery of the weapon. Substantial funding to procure the materials with which to build a bomb
would be necessary, unless a weapon was conveyed to the group by a state or some criminal entity. 99 Finally, a network of competent and dedicated
system.¶
operatives would be required to arrange the transport of the weapon across national borders without detection, which could be challenging considering heightened
security measures, including gamma ray detectors. 100 Such a combination of steps spread throughout each stage of the plot would be daunting. 101¶ As Matthew
in setting the parameters of nuclear terrorism, the laws of physics are both
kind and cruel. In a sense, they are kind insofar as the essential ingredients for a bomb are very difficult to
produce. However, they are also cruel in the sense that while it is not easy to make a nuclear bomb, it is not as difficult as believed once the essential ingredients
Bunn and Anthony Wier once pointed out,
are in hand. 102 Furthermore, as more and more countries undergo industrialization concomitant with the diffusion of technology and expertise, the hurdles for
acquiring these ingredients are now more likely to be surmounted, though HEU is still hard to procure illicitly. In a global economy, dual-use technologies circulate
around the world along with the scientific personnel who design and use them. 103 And although both the US and Russian governments have substantially reduced
their arsenals since the end of the Cold War, many warheads remain. 104 Consequently, there are still many nuclear weapons that could fall into the wrong hands.
EXT - Can’t Drill to Independence
Demand outstrips production – plan forces reliance on OPEC
Eyal Aronoff 12/4/12 (founder of the fuel freedom foundation, real clear energy, “Why is the
IEA Report Considered Good News?”
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2012/12/04/why_is_the_iea_report_on_energy_independ
ence_considered_good_news_106804.html
A surge in unconventional supplies, mainly from light tight oil in the United States and oil sands in Canada . . push nonOPEC production up after 2015 . . .. This is maintained until the mid-2020s, before falling back . . . in 2035. Output
from OPEC countries rises, particularly after 2020, bringing the OPEC share in global production from its current 42% up to 50%
by 2035.¶ In other words, the long-range result of our surge in unconventional oil may only leave us
even more dependent on OPEC in the following decade! Clearly, this is not a promising long-range scenario.¶ One other factor
that looms large in the IEA Report is the coming emergence of Iraq as the world’s second-largest supplier.¶ In our projections, oil output in Iraq
exceeds 6 mb/d in 2020 and rises to more than 8 mb/d in 2035.
Iraq becomes a key supplier to fast-growing Asian
markets, mainly China, and the second-largest global exporter by the 2030s, overtaking Russia.¶ Iraq has a long history of instability and
competes with Iran in offering huge subsidies to its people for the consumption of domestic oil. It too seems like an unreliable place on which to
be banking for long-term supplies.¶ The
underlying problem, as the IEA continually points out, is that oil has no real
competition in the transportation market. As developing countries expand their use of cars
and trucks, this can only drive oil prices higher:¶ Growth in oil consumption in emerging
economies, particularly for transport in China, India and the Middle East, more than outweighs reduced demand in
the OECD, pushing oil use steadily higher . . . [T]he IEA crude oil import price rises to $125/barrel (in year2011 dollars) in 2035. . . .The transport sector already accounts for over half the global oil
consumption, and this share increases as the number of passenger cars doubles to 1.7 billion
and demand for road freight rises quickly. The latter is responsible for almost 40% of the increase in global oil demand.¶
This price increase alone will ensure that Americans will pay $3 trillion over the next ten
years for oil imports – more than we have spent over the last decade. This is equivalent to 75
percent of the financial shortfall faced by the federal government over the same period.
Without unleashing ourselves from world oil markets, there is very little hope we will be able to find a resolution to our financial difficulties.
offshore drilling doesn’t solve dependence-not enough oil, quick production
declines
ASPO-USA ’10 (Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas USA (ASPO-USA) was
founded in 2005 as a network of scientists, researchers, analysts, and other energy observers, to
foster critical examination of oil and gas depletion issues, 2010, “ANWR and Offshore Drilling,”
http://aspousa.org/peak-oil-reference/peak-oil-data/anwr-and-offshore-drilling/)
Drilling in deepwater, as we are doing in the Gulf of Mexico, is the only way the to find oil fields in the Lower 48 that can produce large flows
(50,000 barrels per day or more) of oil. However, deepwater
fields tend to “crash” at high rates, with
production declining at 20% per year or more once they pass the peak.¶ A good example is
BP’s Thunder Horse platform, one of the most advanced deepwater platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. The field was discovered
in 1999 in Mississippi Canyon blocks 788 and 822, and partners BP and Exxon announced that the field had a billion barrels of reserves. The
Thunder Horse platform was originally designed to produce 250,000 barrels per day, but never
reached that level. Its production is already declining by as much as 25% per year, and
now produces about 180,000 barrels per day. Ultimate production from the Thunder Horse complex is expected to fall
significantly short of a billion barrels.¶ Our dependency on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has been brought into sharp relief by the BP
oil spill. (See also: “The Oil Spill in Perspective“ and “The Real Gulf Crisis“)¶ “Energy independence” is unachievable¶ Although every barrel
the idea that we can
somehow drill our way to independence from imported oil is misleading in the extreme. At
the rate that the U.S. currently uses oil, the chance of producing all of our own needs
domestically is zero. The only way we can truly become energy independent is by severely curtailing our oil demand, and switching
we can produce domestically will be welcome and would slightly reduce our dependency on imports,
loads over to renewables.
offshore drilling doesn’t solve dependence, is bad for the econ and the
environment
Helvarg ’10 (David Helvarg, an author and Executive Director of the Blue Frontier Campaign,
an ocean conservation and policy group, 4-1-10, “Oil drilling -- a nasty national habit,” LA
Times, Lexis)
President Obama's
decision to have Interior Secretary Ken Salazar open vast new areas of federal ocean waters
to offshore oil drilling is no surprise. In his State of the Union address, the president explained that his vision for a
clean energy future included offshore drilling, nuclear power and clean coal. Unfortunately, that's like
advocating a healthy diet based on fast-food snacking, amphetamines and low-tar
cigarettes.¶ If the arguments you hear in the coming days for expanded drilling sound familiar, it's because they've been repeated for
generations. We've been hearing promises about safer drilling technologies since before Union Oil began drilling in the Santa Barbara Channel.
And if you don't remember what happened that time, you should. Soon
after the wells were bored, one of them blew
out in January 1969, causing a massive oil slick that slimed beaches and killed birds, fish and
marine mammals. The resulting catastrophe helped spark the modern environmental movement.¶ The president has promised no new
drilling off the West Coast, and it's no wonder. Opposition was unified and vociferous during Salazar's public hearing on offshore energy
development in San Francisco in April 2009. More than 500 people -- including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Gov. Ted Kulongoski of Oregon,
California's lieutenant governor and four House members -- testified and rallied for clean energy and against any new oil drilling.¶ Boxer
noted that the coast was a treasure and a huge economic asset "just as is," generating $24
billion a year and 390,000 jobs.¶ Still, in the new Department of Interior announcement, one can hear echoes of President
Reagan's Interior secretary, Don Hodel, who warned us in the 1980s that if we didn't expand offshore drilling, we'd be "putting ourselves at the
tender mercies of OPEC."¶ We did expand offshore drilling then, not off the stunning redwood coastline of Mendocino, Calif., as Hodel wanted,
but where the oil industry knew most of the oil and gas actually was and is: in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. We even created a royalty
moratorium for the oil companies that went after those huge deep-water fields.¶ But offshore
drilling has done little to
wean us from Middle Eastern oil. And with less than 5% of our domestic oil located
offshore, more ocean drilling won't help now either.
Oil production doesn’t solve dependence – political and environmental
movements prevent
Clifford Krauss, 4-22-2014, national business correspondent covering energy, author,
journalist,4/22/2014. “Challenges Lie Ahead for North American Oil Production,” New York
Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/business/energy-environment/challenges-lie-aheadfor-north-american-oil-production.html?_r=0
At a time when Russia is saber-rattling and the Middle East is in turmoil, a welcome geopolitical
trifecta could be in the making. The United States is poised to surpass Saudi Arabia and
Russia as the world’s top oil producer. Canada’s oil sands have vaulted the country to energy
superpower status. Mexico is embarking on a historic constitutional energy overhaul that its
president promises will propel the country’s economy. And there is no shortage of cheerleaders.
“The North American production outlook is incredibly bright,” said Jason Bordoff, a
former senior energy adviser in President Obama’s White House. “Everything we see on
the ground suggests reasons to be optimistic.” BIG RIG A Petróleos Mexicanos complex in
the Gulf of Mexico. Pending legislation could open exploration and production in Mexico to
international oil companies.Energy Special Section But as bright as the future may appear,
energy executives and other experts say it is time for a reality check before declaring
energy independence for the United States and its continent. Gushing oil and gas give
North America hopes of becoming what some call “Saudi America,” but fossil fuels
development is always contentious for its environmental costs. The Keystone XL pipeline,
intended to connect Canada’s oil sands to American refineries, has been tangled in politics and
regulatory concerns for years. Grass-roots environmental movements have stopped natural
gas drilling in New York State and Quebec, and they threaten the expansion of oil company
operations, pipelines and port terminals in the Western United States and Canada.
Oil dependence inevitable – demand too high
Brad Plumber 12, Reporter on domestic energy issues, 5/10/2014, “True oil independence is
an unrealistic dream,” Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/oil-independence-is-an-impossibledream/2012/05/10/gIQAy2EoFU_blog.html
Over at the Council of Foreign Relations, Michael Levi takes issue with some of the recent
hyperbole about U.S. energy independence. He points out that even if the United States
does become the world’s biggest producer of oil, natural gas and biofuels by 2020 — an
impressive achievement, for sure — we’d still be importing 22 percent of our oil and gas
from abroad. To put that in perspective, that would still leave the U.S. more dependent on
foreign energy than it was back in 1973, when OPEC oil shocks were kneecapping the
economy
EXT – Doesn’t Solve Hegemony/National Security
Only reducing consumption solves their internal link – global markets means
enemies still profit – their 1AC article
Rebecca Lefton And Daniel J. Weiss, 1-13-2010, "Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit,"
American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2010/01/13/7200/oildependence-is-a-dangerous-habit/
As a major contributor to the global demand for oil the U nited S tates is paying to finance
and sustain unfriendly regimes. Our demand drives up oil prices on the global market,
which oftentimes benefits oil-producing nations that don’t sell to us. The Center for
American Progress finds in “Securing America’s Future: Enhancing Our National Security by
Reducing oil Dependence and Environmental Damage,” that “because of this, anti-Western
nations such as Iran—with whom the United States by law cannot trade or buy oil—benefit
regardless of who the end buyer of the fuel is.” Further, the regimes and elites that
economically benefit from rich energy resources rarely share oil revenues with their people,
which worsens economic disparity in the countries and at times creates resource-driven tension
and crises. The State Department cites oil-related violence in particular as a danger in Nigeria,
where more than 54 national oil workers or businesspeople have been kidnapped at oil-related
facilities and other infrastructure since January 2008. Attacks by insurgents on the U.S. military
and civilians continue to be a danger in Iraq. Our oil dependence will also be increasingly
harder and more dangerous to satisfy. In 2008 the United States consumed 23 percent of
the world’s petroleum, 57 percent of which was imported. Yet the United States holds less
than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. Roughly 40 percent of our imports came from Canada,
Mexico, and Saudi Arabia, but we can’t continue relying on these allies. The majority of
Canada’s oil lies in tar sands, a very dirty fuel, and Mexico’s main oil fields are projected dry up
within a decade. Without reducing our dependence on oil we’ll be forced to increasingly
look to more antagonistic and volatile countries that pose direct threats to our national
security.
More evidence - consumption patterns draw the US into warming based aid
that hamstrings the military and makes the terror advantage inevitable
Rebecca Lefton And Daniel J. Weiss, 1-13-2010, "Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit,"
American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2010/01/13/7200/oildependence-is-a-dangerous-habit/
Meanwhile, America’s voracious oil appetite continues to contribute to another growing
national security concern: climate change. Burning oil is one of the largest sources of
greenhouse gas emissions and therefore a major driver of climate change, which if left
unchecked could have very serious security global implications. Burning oil imported from
“dangerous or unstable” countries alone released 640.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere, which is the same as keeping more than 122.5 million passenger vehicles
on the road. Recent studies found that the gravest consequences of climate change could
threaten to destabilize governments, intensify terrorist actions, and displace hundreds of
millions of people due to increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters, higher
incidences of diseases such as malaria, rising sea levels, and food and water shortages. A
2007 analysis by the Center for American Progress concludes that the geopolitical implications
of climate change could include wide-spanning social, political, and environmental
consequences such as “destabilizing levels of internal migration” in developing countries and
more immigration into the United States. The U.S. military will face increasing pressure to
deal with these crises, which will further put our military at risk and require already
strapped resources to be sent abroad. Global warming-induced natural disasters will create
emergencies that demand military aid, such as Hurricane Katrina at home and the 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami abroad. The world’s poor will be put in the most risk, as richer countries are more
able to adapt to climate change. Developed countries will be responsible for aid efforts as well as
responding to crises from climate-induced mass migration. five biggest companies importing oil
from unstable countries Military and intelligence experts alike recognize that global warming
poses serious environmental, social, political, and military risks that we must address in the
interest of our own defense. The Pentagon is including climate change as a security threat
in its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, a congressionally mandated report that updates
Pentagon priorities every four years. The State Department will also incorporate climate change
as a national security threat in its Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. And in
September the CIA created the Center on Climate Change and National Security to provide
guidance to policymakers surrounding the national security impact of global warming. Leading
Iraq and Afghanistan military veterans also advocate climate and clean-energy policies because
they understand that such reform is essential to make us safer. Jonathan Powers, an Iraq war
veteran and chief operating officer for the Truman National Security Project, said “We recognize
that climate change is already affecting destabilized states that have fragile governments. That’s
why hundreds of veterans in nearly all 50 states are standing up with Operation Free—because
they know that in those fragile states, against those extremist groups, it is our military that is
going to have to act.” The CNA Corporation’s Military Advisory Board determined in 2007 that
“Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile
regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United
States.” In an update of its 2007 report last year CNA found that climate change, energy
dependence, and national security are interlinked challenges.
AT: Technology/Alliances Internal Link
Your evidence is about gas fracking, renewable development, and if the US
becomes a net exporter WITHIN THIS DECADE– the plan is just oil (and our
other case D proves getting oil takes too long)
Dan Mahaffee, Dir. Policy and Board Relations @ Center for the Study for the Pres., summer
2012, “The Geopolitics of U.S. Energy Independence,” International Economy,
http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Su12_GeopoliticsEnergySymp.pdf
If the United States becomes a net energy exporter within a decade through expanded oil
exploration, alternative energy innovation, and natural gas shale "fracking" techniques ,
we can continue to shape the global marketplace. As a result, the future will look an awful lot
like the balance of power we enjoy today. With the development of new U.S. energy exports, our
close allies will be a natural destination for these products. While post-nuclear Japan will be a
major destination for U.S. energy, there is already an existing open-market affinity between the
United States and Europe. Although Germany may need to seek closer relations with Russia for
its energy needs, it could also turn to its more natural ally, the United States, for exports, as well
as U.S. expertise to help harness Europe's own sources of energy from European shale
formations. Ultimately, the United States may find itself in a position of power, not in terms of
barrels or BTUs, but rather in the technical expertise we develop in cutting-edge energy
extraction. In this respect, investments today in our education system and science
infrastructure may be the deciding factor.
EXT – Doesn’t Solve Terror
Other concerns in the region maintain a footprint – makes the resentment
internal link intvitable
Wolf 12 “The Geopolitics of U.S. Energy Independence” Charles Wolf- Distinguished Corporate Chair in
International Economics, RAND Corporation, Professor, Pardee Rand Graduate School, and Senior Research
Fellow, Hoover Institution,Summer 2012, International http://www.internationaleconomy.com/TIE_Su12_GeopoliticsEnergySymp.pdf
U.S. foreign policy and military security concerns are not thereby likely to be diminished.
Such collateral events as the following would account for our continued concerns: Iran’s
persistent pursuit of deliverable nuclear weapons (if not by then having been already acquired);
Saudi concerns with countering this development; also the heightened concerns of other Sunni
elements in the Middle East; Egypt's restiveness still further aggravated by these
circumstances; and Israel's concerns about what to do and how to do it in the face of these
developments. In sum, I doubt that the area will be more quiescent as a result of the sharp
change in relative oil and gas prices. That said, it's as plausible that U.S.-Israeli relations will
become more harmonious in these circumstances as it is that they will become less so.
EXT – No Hegemony Impact
Heg collapse doesn’t cause global nuclear war – conflicts would be small and
managable
Haas, 8 (Richard Haas (president of the Council on Foreign Relations, former director of policy
planning for the Department of State, former vice president and director of foreign policy studies
at the Brookings Institution, the Sol M. Linowitz visiting professor of international studies at
Hamilton College, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a
lecturer in public policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and a
research associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies) April 2008 “Ask the Expert:
What Comes After Unipolarity?” http://www.cfr.org/publication/16063/ask_the_expert.html)
Does a non polar world increase or reduce the chances of another world war? Will nuclear
deterrence continue to prevent a large scale conflict? Sivananda Rajaram, UK Richard Haass: I believe the
chance of a world war, i.e., one involving the major powers of the day, is remote and likely to stay that way.
This reflects more than anything else the absence of disputes or goals that could lead to such a conflict. Nuclear deterrence might be a
contributing factor in the sense that no
conceivable dispute among the major powers would justify any
use of nuclear weapons, but again, I believe the fundamental reason great power relations are
relatively good is that all hold a stake in sustaining an international order that supports
trade and financial flows and avoids large-scale conflict. The danger in a nonpolar world is
not global conflict as we feared during the Cold War but smaller but still highly costly
conflicts involving terrorist groups, militias, rogue states, etc.
Military superiority doesn’t translate into winning wars
Keating, 13 (Joshua, associate editor at Foreign Policy, 3/18, “Why can't America win a war
these days?”, Foreign Policy,
http://ideas.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/03/18/why_cant_america_win_a_war_these_days)
With the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq this week, it seems a worthwhile time to reflect on the fact that for
all its obvious
military advantages over every country on the planet, the U nited S tates doesn't seem particularly
good at winning wars anymore.
In her book-length study, Who Wins: Predicting Strategic Success and Failure in Armed Conflict, University of North Carolina political scientist
Patricia L. Sullivan writes:
"The
U nited S tates failed to achieve its primary political objectives in approximately 30 percent of its
major military operation between 1946 and 2002. In almost every one of these failues, the U nited S tates
chose to terminate its military intervenion short of victory despite the fact that it retained an
overwhelming physical capacity to sustain military operations. The U.S. withdrawal from Somalia after the
death of sixteen Army Rangers may appear to be an extreme case, but it is consistent with a pattern in which the U nited S tates
experienced higher-than-expected costs and withdrew its troops short of attaining
intervention objectives, despite the fact that its military was, at most, only marginally
degraded in the conflict. The United States' unsuccessful intervention in Vietnam is, of course, the quintessential example. "
Sullivan argues that the
most important factor in predicting whether a country will be successful in
initiating military conflict is not its relative military might or prosperity compared to its opponent, or
even it's "resolve" to keep up the fight in the face of high casualties, but the goals and expectations it has going into the conflict. She writest
that superior firepower is less of an advantage the more the attacker's war aims require its opponents to change its behavior:
Powerful states do not lose small wars simply because they have less cost tolerance than their
weak adversaries. The extent to which a physically weaker actor's cost-tolerance advantage can affect armed conflict outcomes is
largely a function of the degree to which the stronger actor has war aims that require the weak actor to change its behavior. The balance of
military capabilities between the belligerents is expected to be the most important determinant of outcomes when the objects at stake can be
seized and held with physical force alone. The defender's tolerance for costs becomes more significant when a challenger pursues political
objectives that require a change in target behavior.
Operation Desert Storm was an example of the first type of objective. Despite Saddam Hussein's warning to the United States that "yours is a
society which cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle," the war was over must faster than even U.S. miltary planners expected. The expulsion of
Iraqi forces from Kuwait was a goal that could be accomplished through brute force alone, and the U.S. military advantage was decisive. This
was true of Saddam's initial ouster in 2003 as well.
But, Sullivan argues, following the ouster of Iraq,
the second Bush administration vastly overestimated the
usefulness of its firepower advantage in supporting the new Iraqi government against a growing domestic insurgency.
The book's conclusions aren't exactly shocking in the post-Iraq era -- the field of counterinsurgency studies is devoted largely to the question of
how to affect a population's behavior in situations where firepower isn't an advantage -- but judging by the news out of Mali, it's not clear that
militarily-superior western power have exactly learned the lesson.
EXT – No Nuclear Terrorism
No risk of WMD terrorism – don’t have the resources or focus
Mueller and Stewart, 12 (Professor PolSci Ohio State, and Stewart, Professor Infrastructure
Performance at U of Newcastle, ’12, John- Senior Research Scientist Mershon Center for
International Security Studies, Mark- Australian Research Council Professorial Fellow, Summer,
“The Terrorism Delusion: America’s Overwrought Response to September 11” International
Security, Vol 37 No 1, ProjectMuse)
Few of the sleepless, it seems, found much solace in the fact that an
al-Qaida computer seized in Afghanistan in 2001
indicated that the group’s budget for research on w eapons of m ass d estruction (almost all of it focused
on primitive chemical weapons work) was
$2,000 to $4,000.49 In the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden, officials now have
many more al-Qaida computers, and nothing in their content appears to suggest that the group
had the time or inclination, let alone the money, to set up and staff a uranium-seizing operation,
as well as a fancy, super-high-technology facility to fabricate a bomb. This is a process that
requires trusting corrupted foreign collaborators and other criminals, obtaining and transporting
highly guarded material, setting up a machine shop staffed with top scientists and technicians,
and rolling the heavy, cumbersome, and untested finished product into position to be detonated
by a skilled crew—all while attracting no attention from outsiders.50¶ If the miscreants in the
American cases have been unable to create and set off even the simplest conventional bombs, it
stands to reason that none of them were very close to creating, or having anything to do with,
nuclear weapons—or for that matter biological, radiological, or chemical ones. In fact, with perhaps one
exception, none seems to have even dreamed of the prospect ; and the exception is José Padilla (case 2), who
apparently mused at one point about creating a dirty bomb—a device that would disperse radiation—or even possibly an atomic one. His idea
about isotope separation was to put uranium into a pail and then to make himself into a human centrifuge by swinging the pail around in great
arcs.51 [End Page 98]¶ Even
if a weapon were made abroad and then brought into the U nited S tates, its
detonation would require individuals in-country with the capacity to receive and handle the
complicated weapons and then to set them off. Thus far, the talent pool appears, to put mildly, very
thin.
Theoretical possibilities are irrelevant – there are too many difficult steps which make it
functionally impossible
Chapman 12 (Stephen, editorial writer for Chicago Tribune, “CHAPMAN: Nuclear terrorism
unlikely,” May 22, http://www.oaoa.com/articles/chapman-87719-nuclear-terrorism.html)
A layperson may figure it’s only a matter of time before the unimaginable comes to pass. Harvard’s Graham Allison, in his book “Nuclear
Terrorism,” concludes, “On the current course, nuclear terrorism is inevitable.” But remember: Afxter
Sept. 11, 2001, we all
thought more attacks were a certainty. Yet al-Qaida and its ideological kin have proved unable to mount
a second strike. Given their inability to do something simple — say, shoot up a shopping mall or
set off a truck bomb — it’s reasonable to ask whether they have a chance at something much
more ambitious. Far from being plausible, argued Ohio State University professor John Mueller in a presentation at the University of
Chicago, “the likelihood that a terrorist group will come up with an atomic bomb seems to be
vanishingly small.” The events required to make that happen comprise a multitude of Herculean tasks.
First, a terrorist group has to get a bomb or fissile material, perhaps from Russia’s inventory of decommissioned
warheads. If that were easy, one would have already gone missing. Besides, those devices are probably
no longer a danger, since weapons that are not maintained quickly become what one expert calls “radioactive scrap metal.” If
terrorists were able to steal a Pakistani bomb, they would still have to defeat the arming codes
and other safeguards designed to prevent unauthorized use. As for Iran, no nuclear state has ever given a
bomb to an ally — for reasons even the Iranians can grasp. Stealing some 100 pounds of bomb fuel would require
help from rogue individuals inside some government who are prepared to jeopardize their own lives. Then comes the task of
building a bomb. It’s not something you can gin up with spare parts and power tools in your
garage. It requires millions of dollars, a safe haven and advanced equipment — plus people with
specialized skills, lots of time and a willingness to die for the cause. Assuming the jihadists vault over those
Himalayas, they would have to deliver the weapon onto American soil. Sure, drug smugglers bring in contraband
all the time — but seeking their help would confront the plotters with possible exposure or extortion. This, like every other step in
the entire process, means expanding the circle of people who know what’s going on, multiplying
the chance someone will blab, back out or screw up. That has heartening implications. If al-Qaida embarks on the
project, it has only a minuscule chance of seeing it bear fruit. Given the formidable odds, it probably won’t bother.
None of this means we should stop trying to minimize the risk by securing nuclear stockpiles, monitoring terrorist communications and
improving port screening. But it offers good reason to think that in this war, it appears, the
never happen.
worst eventuality is one that will
Iran Advantage
1NC Iran Advantage
Domestic Drilling doesn’t solve leverage – still uses the global market, giving
Iran Profits
Beddor et al 9 “Securing America’s Future Enhancing Our National Security by Reducing Oil Dependence
and Environmental Damage” Christopher Beddor, Winny Chen, Rudy deLeon, Shiyong Park, and Daniel J. Weiss
August 2009, http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2009/08/pdf/energy_security.pdf
Former military officials are speaking out on this issue. The CNA Military Advisory Board, a
group of distinguished retired military leaders, issued a report in May 2009 arguing that
America's reliance on foreign oil poses a serious threat to U.S. national security. The report,
entitled "Powering Americas Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security," concluded
that "US dependence on oil weakens international leverage, undermines foreign policy
objectives, and entangles America with unstable or hostile regimes?" America's oil
dependence has other indirect but no less serious impacts on U.S. interests. For example,
high rates of American consumption drive up global demand for oil, which fuels lofty
prices and helps to fund and to sustain undemocratic and corrupt regimes. Because of this
anti-Western nations such as Iran-with whom the United States by law cannot trade or buy oilbenefit regardless of who the end buyer of the fuel is.
Iran can’t arm twist the US – we don’t get an oil from Iran – here’s a chart
Sedghi 12 “Iran oil exports: where do they go?” Ami Sedghi- award winning data researcher
and reporter for the Guardian, Monday 6 February 2012,
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/feb/06/iran-oil-exports-destination#data
Iran cut off has no impact – other countries fill in
Philips 12 “Does the World Need Iran's Oil? Apparently Not” Matthew Philips-Associate
editor for Bloomberg, August 10, 2012, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-10/doesthe-world-need-irans-oil-apparently-not
It’s been about a month since the full extent of the West’s oil sanctions against Iran went
into effect. And so far, they seem to be working better than expected. Iran’s oil exports have
fallen by about 1.4 million barrels per day, which “substantially exceeds” an earlier estimate
of 900,000 barrels, according to an Aug. 9 report by Goldman Sachs (GS) energy analyst David
Greely. That’s a 50 percent cut in Iran’s crude exports in the past year, quite a bit steeper
than the gradual “20 to 30 percent” decline predicted in June by Iran’s government, which
gets about 80 percent of its revenue from oil. At $100 a barrel, that’s roughly $100 million a day
in revenue that is no longer flowing into Iran’s coffers. And inflation is starting to take hold—the
price of chicken has tripled since last year. The Goldman report estimates that U.S. sanctions
have cut demand for Iranian crude by about 350,000 barrels per day, and that the European
Union embargo have reduced it by another 600,000 barrels per day. The extra 500,000 barrel loss
comes from the fact that Iran can no longer get ships from other countries to carry its oil. The EU
sanctions ban European insurance companies from covering ships carrying Iranian oil—a big
problem for Iran considering EU companies control at least 90 percent of the oil tanker insurance
market, according to the Goldman report. If you were feeling dodgy about carrying Iranian oil
before, you’re certainly not going to do so without insurance. India recently approved a
government-backed insurance program to cover tankers carrying Iranian crude, but it’s not likely
to come anywhere close to providing the $1 billion of coverage typically needed to insure a full
tanker. And so Iran’s ability to export its oil now rests almost entirely with its own fleet of ships,
which it apparently has been trying to disguise. You’d think that losing half the oil from a top
OPEC producer like Iran would roil the oil markets. But so far, the world doesn’t seem to
be missing Iran’s oil. That’s mostly because we’re swimming in crude as it is. Saudi Arabia
is overproducing. Iraq just passed Iran as OPEC’s second-largest oil producer. Libya is
back. And production in the U.S. is rising faster than anyone thought. According to Timothy
Evans, energy futures strategist at Citigroup (C), U.S. oil production is up 14.2 percent over
the last 12 months. Not that we export any of that oil. But gains in domestic production have
lessened our need for OPEC oil, meaning it’s free to find other markets such as China and India.
Revenue decline is inevitable and means no impact
Gasiorowski 7 (Mark Gasiorowski, Summer 2007. Professor of political science and director of
the International Studies Program at Louisiana State University. “The New Aggressiveness in
Iran’s Foreign Policy,” Middle East Policy 14.2, Proquest)
Economic conditions also continue to constrain Iran's foreign policy. Despite moderate economic growth during the past
decade, unemployment remains high and living standards remain somewhat lower than at their pre-revolutionary peak some 30 years ago, fueling
popular discontent. The current oil boom has produced a sharp increase in Iran's export revenue during the past few years, but much of this has
been spent on higher imports, foreign borrowing and consumer-goods subsidies. During his 2005 presidential campaign, Ahmadinejad made
unrealistic promises to raise living standards, creating high expectations that have not been met. His populist policies have failed to address the
country's deeply rooted economic problems and are producing higher inflation. Moreover,
declining oil production and
rapidly increasing domestic energy consumption are likely to produce a steep drop in Iran's
oil and gas exports in the coming years, sharply reducing its export revenue. Therefore, while
the oil boom has strengthened Iran and contributed to its new aggressiveness, its effects have
been limited and will likely dissipate in the coming years. Iran's leaders still face strong
pressure to pursue moderate foreign policies that will help raise living standards and revitalize
the economy.
No impact to Iran Proliferation—credible U.S. and Israel deterrence, leadership is rational,
won’t give weapons to terrorists
Carpenter, 12 (Ted Galen – senior fellow at the Cato Institute, April 12, “The Pernicious Myth
That Iran Can’t Be Deterred”, CATO Institute,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/pernicious-myth-iran-cant-be-deterred)
Rumblings about possible war with Iran have grown louder
in Washington and other Western capitals in the past few months. Speculation has centered on the likelihood that Israel
will launch preemptive air strikes against Iran’s nuclear installations, but there is also considerable talk that the United States might join in such strikes or even take on the primary mission to make certain that the key sites are destroyed.
Most advocates of military action against Iran contend that the system of international economic sanctions against the clerical regime is not halting progress on the country’s nuclear program and that the world simply cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. President Obama has stated
repeatedly that it would be “unacceptable” for Tehran to have nuclear weapons, and Mitt Romney, the President’s likely opponent in the November election, says flatly that he will never allow the emergence of a nuclear Iran on his watch.
The reason that a growing number of politicians and pundits embrace the war option, even though most of them concede that such a step could create dangerous instability in an already turbulent region, is that they explicitly or implicitly believe that Iran is undeterrable.
The
typical allegation
is that if Iran builds nuclear weapons, it will use them — certainly against Israel, and possibly
against the United States or its NATO allies. Most realists dispute that notion, pointing out that the U nited S tates has
several thousand nuclear weapons and successfully deterred such difficult actors as the Soviet Union and
Maoist China. They also note that Israel has between 150 and 300 nuclear weapons — an extremely credible
deterrent.
None of that matters, hawks
contend, because the Iranian leadership is not rational and, therefore, the normal logic of deterrence
does not apply. Several war advocates stress Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s obsession with the return of the “12th Imam,” an event in Islamic lore that is to be accompanied by an
apocalypse. Clifford May, the head of the neo-conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, argues that “more than a few of Iran’s rulers hold the theological conviction that the
return of the Mahdi, the savior, can be brought about only by an apocalypse.” He goes on to cite ultra-hawkish Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, who asserts that for those who share
Ahmadinejad’s vision, “mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent. It’s an inducement.”
There are several problems with that thesis. First, Ahmadinejad is hardly the most powerful figure
in the Iranian political system. That’s why the all-too-frequent comparisons of Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler are
especially absurd. The real power in Iran is held by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his inner circle of senior clerics.
And members of that leadership elite have publicly rebuked Ahmadinejad for devoting too much time and energy
to the issue of the 12th Imam.
Second, the return
of the Mahdi in the midst of an apocalypse is scarcely a unique religious myth. Most major
religions have an “end of the world” mystic scenario involving a savior. Christianity, for example, has the Book
of Revelations, with the appearance of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, Armageddon, and the second coming of Jesus Christ. Given the influence of Christianity among
American political leaders, foreign critics could make the case that the United States cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, because a devout Christian leader who believed Revelations would
be tempted to bring about Armageddon.
leaders in any political system usually prefer to enjoy the riches and other perks of this life rather than
seek to bring about prematurely the speculative benefits of a next life. There is no credible
The reality is that
evidence
that the Iranian
leadership deviates from that norm. And those leaders certainly know that a
nuclear attack on Israel, the U nited S tates, or Washington’s NATO allies would trigger a devastating
counter-attack that would end their rule and obliterate Iran as a functioning society.
It is appropriate to demand that hawks produce evidence — not just allegations
— that
deterrence
is inapplicable because Iranian leaders are suicidal. But one will search in vain for such evidence
in the thirty-three years that the clerical regime has held power.
There is, in fact, an abundance of counter-evidence. Meir Dagan, the former head of Israel’s Mossad
intelligence agency, has stated that he considers Iran’s leaders — including Ahmadinejad — “very
rational”. Tehran’s behavior over the years confirms that assessment. During the early stages of the Iraq-Iran
war in the 1980s, the Ayatollah Khomeini said that he would “never make peace” with Saddam Hussein. But when the war dragged
on for years and the correlation of forces turned against Iran, the country’s military leaders persuaded Khomeini and the clerical elite to
conclude a compromise peace. That’s hardly the behavior of an irrational, suicidal political system.
Indeed, there
is strong evidence
that Iranian
leaders understand that there are red lines that they dare not
cross. One of the specters that Western hawks create is that Iran would transfer nuclear weapons to non-state terrorist groups. But Iran has had
chemical weapons in its arsenal since the days of the Shah. There is not a shred of evidence that Tehran has passed on
such weapons to any of its political clients, including Hezbollah and Hamas. Given the visceral hatred those
organizations harbor toward Israel, it is nearly certain that they would have used chemical weapons against Israeli targets if Iran had ever put
them in their hands. Again, it certainly appears that
had to
deterrence neutralized any temptation Tehran might have
engage in reckless conduct.
A more rational fear than the notion that Iran would commit suicide by launching a nuclear attack against adversaries who have vast nuclear
arsenals, or even that Iran would court a similar fate by supplying terrorist groups with nukes, is the
thesis that Tehran would
exploit a nuclear shield to then bully its neighbors. But even that fear is greatly exaggerated . As Cato Institute
scholar Justin Logan points out in the April issue of The American Conservative, Iran’s conventional forces are weak and the
country’s power projection capabilities are meager. A nuclear Iran likely would be capable of deterring a US attack on
its homeland — attacks that the United States has a habit of launching against non-nuclear adversaries like Serbia, Iraq and Libya — but such a
capability would
not translate into Iranian domination of the M iddle E ast. That nightmare scenario is only a little less
overwrought than the other theories about the “Iranian threat.”
They won’t proliferate—long timeframe, no evidence they’re making moves, we would detect
it, forceful international response, no covert uranium enrichment plants, no decision from leaders
to develop weapons
Kahl, 12 (Colin H. Kahl – Associate Professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown
University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and Senior Fellow at the Center for a
New American Security, March/April, “Not Time to Attack Iran: Why War Should Be a Last
Resort”, Foreign Affairs, ProQuest)
bad timing
Kroenig argues that there is an urgent need to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure soon, since Tehran could "produce its first nuclear weapon
I nternational A tomic E nergy A gency (iaea) has
documented Iranian efforts to achieve the capacity to develop nuclear weapons at some point, but there is
no hard evidence that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has yet made the final decision to develop
them.
within six months of deciding to do so." Yet that last phrase is crucial. The
In arguing for a six-month horizon, Kroenig also misleadingly conflates hypothetical timelines to produce weaponsgrade uranium with the time
actually required to construct a bomb. According
to 2010 Senate testimony by James Cartwright, then vice chairman of the U.S. Joint
if Iran
could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in six months, it would take it at least a year to
Chiefs of Staa, and recent statements by the former heads of Israel's national intelligence and defense intelligence agencies, even
produce a testable nuclear device and considerably longer to make a deliverable weapon. And
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (and the source of Kroenig's six-month estimate), recently
told Agence France-Presse that there is a " low probability " that the Iranians would actually develop a
bomb over the next year even if they had the capability to do so. Because there is no evidence
that Iran
has
built additional covert enrichment plants since the Natanz and Qom sites were outed in 2002 and 2009, respectively, any nearterm move by Tehran to produce weapons-grade uranium would have to rely on its declared facilities. The
iaea would thus detect such activity with su/cient time for the international community to mount a
forceful response . As a result, the Iranians are unlikely to commit to building nuclear weapons until they
can do so much more quickly or out of sight, which could be years oa.
Kroenig is also inconsistent about the timetable for an attack. In some places, he suggests that strikes should begin now, whereas in others, he argues that the United States should attack only if
Iran takes certain actions-such as expelling iaea inspectors, beginning the enrichment of weapons-grade uranium, or installing large numbers of advanced centrifuges, any one of which would
signal that it had decided to build a bomb. Kroenig is likely right that these developments-and perhaps others, such as the discovery of new covert enrichment sites-would create a decision point
for the use of force. But the
Iranians have not taken these steps yet, and as Kroenig acknowledges, "Washington has a very
good chance " of detecting them if they do.
Iran won’t close the Strait of Hormuz—damage to its own economy, not easy,
empirics, US and allies military forces, risk of retaliation against nuclear program
Russell and Boot, 12 (Bradley S. Russell – navy captain and visiting fellow at the Council
on Foreign Relations and former chief of staff to U.S. Navy Central Command/Fifth Fleet in
Bahrain, Max Boot – senior fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign
Relations, 1/4, “Iran Won't Close the Strait of Hormuz”, Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020463220457713083420065 6156.html)
Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz last week, in response to U.S. and European Union moves to apply
sanctions on its oil industry. Only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, the strait sees the passage of roughly 28 tanker ships a day, half loaded,
half empty. Some 17 million barrels of oil—20% of oil traded in the world—go through this chokepoint. If
Iran really could close
the strait, it would do great damage to the world economy. But it would also damage its own already shaky economy
because Iran relies on the strait to deliver oil exports to China and other customers.
In any case, closing
the strait is not nearly as easy as Adm. Habibollah Sayari, commander of the Iranian
Navy, would have it. He said that closing the strait is "as easy as drinking a glass of water." Actually it
would be about as easy as drinking an entire bucket of water in one gulp.
Iran tried this trick before and failed miserably .
In 1984, during the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein attacked Iranian oil tankers and the Iranian oil-processing facility at Kharq Island. Iran struck
back by attacking Kuwaiti tankers carrying Iraqi crude and then other tankers in the Persian Gulf. In 1987, after years of growing disruptions in this vital waterway, President Ronald Reagan responded by offering to reflag Kuwaiti tankers with the U.S. flag and provide U.S. naval escort. Iran
shied away from direct attacks on U.S. warships but continued sowing mines, staging attacks with small patrol boats, and firing a variety of missiles at tankers.
On April 14, 1988, the guided-missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine; no sailors were killed but several were injured and the ship nearly sank. The U.S. Navy responded by launching Operation Praying Mantis, its biggest surface combat action since World War II.
Half a dozen U.S. warships in two separate Surface Action Groups moved in to destroy two Iranian oil platforms. The Iranians responded by sending armed speedboats, frigates and F-4 aircraft to fire at the U.S. warships.
In defending themselves, the American vessels sank at least three Iranian speedboats, one gunboat and one frigate; other Ira nian ships and aircraft were damaged. The only major U.S. loss occurred when a Marine Corps Sea Cobra helicopter crashed, apparently by accident, killing two
crewmen.
The war all but ended less than three months later when the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes mistakenly fired a surface-to-air missile at an Iranian passenger airliner that it had mistaken for a fighter jet. The plane was destroyed and 290 people killed. Although this was an accident, the
Iranian regime was convinced that Washington was escalating the conflict and decided to reach a truce with Iraq.
The greatest loss suffered by U.S. forces during this whole conflict occurred in 1987 when an Iraqi aircraft fired an Exocet missile that hit the frigate USS Stark, killing 37 sailors and injuring 21. (Saddam Hussein claimed this was an accident.)
The Iranians had little to show for their efforts: Lloyd's of London estimated that the Tanker War resulted in damage to 546 commercial vessels and the deaths of 430 civilian mariners but many of those losses were caused by Iraq, not Iran. While these
temporarily disrupted the free passage of oil, they did
attacks
not come close to closing the strait.
Despite the unveiling of a new antiship cruise missile called the Qader, Iran's
conventional naval and air forces—on display
during the Veleyat 90 naval exercises in the Persian Gulf which ended Monday— are still no match for the U.S. and its allies
in the region. The U.S. alone has in the area two carrier strike groups, an expeditionary strike force
(centered around an amphibious assault ship that is in essence a small aircraft carrier), and numerous land-based aircraft at
bases such as Al Udied in Qatar, Al Dafra in the United Arab Emirates, and Isa Air Base in Bahrain. The U.S.
and our Arab allies (which
are equipped with a growing array of modern American-made equipment such as F-15s and F-16s) could use overwhelming
force to destroy Iran's conventional naval forces in very short order.
Iran's real ability to disrupt the flow of oil lies in its asymmetric war-fighting capacity. Iran has thousands of mines(and any ship that can carry a mine is by definition a mine-layer), a small
number of midget submarines, thousands of small watercraft that could be used in swarm attacks, and antiship cruise missiles. If the Iranians lay mines, it will take a significant amount of time to
clear them. It took several months to clear all mines after the Tanker War, but a much shorter period to clear safe passages through the Persian Gulf to and from oil shipping terminals.
Antiship cruise missiles are mobile, yet those can also be found and destroyed. Yono submarines are
short-duration threats—they eventually have to come to port for resupply, and when they do they will be
sitting ducks . U.S. forces may take losses, as they did with the hits on the USS Stark and Samuel B. Roberts, but they will
prevail and in fairly short order.
The Iranians must realize that the balance of forces does not lie in their favor. By initiating hostilities they risk
American
retaliation against their most prized assets—their covert nuclear-weapons program. The odds are good,
then, that the Iranians will not follow through on their saber-rattling threats.
EXT – Doesn’t Solve Leverage
Global demand will keep Iran afloat
Beddor et al 9 “Securing America’s Future Enhancing Our National Security by Reducing Oil Dependence
and Environmental Damage” Christopher Beddor, Winny Chen, Rudy deLeon, Shiyong Park, and Daniel J. Weiss
August 2009, http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2009/08/pdf/energy_security.pdf
Last year, record oil prices driven by global demand and speculators flooded Iran's
treasury with oil money, which helped keep Mahmoud Ahmadinejad afloat. Prior to Iran's
presidential election The Economist noted, "The president's open-handed economic policies,
based on a windfall of $250 billion in oil sales during his four-year term and intended to
redistribute wealth, have won friends among the poor.” Reducing U.S. oil demand in the world
market would be a big financial hit to Iran and other unfriendly petro states. And it would
have the added benefit of making more fuel from stable nations available to countries such as
China, which currently purchases from Iran and Sudan because U.S. demand dominates oil trade
with friendly sources.
EXT – Iran War Defense
No Iranian lashout
Boroujerdi 7 (Mehrzad, Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Middle
Eastern Studies Program, “Iranian Nuclear Miasma”, Syracuse Law Review, 57 Syracuse L.
Rev. 619, Lexis)
The potential
for groupthink miscalculations is also thwarted by the existence of multiple consensusbased decision bodies within the overall multilayered structure. 18 While this complex process can
sometimes make Iranian policy confusing and contradictory, it does not necessarily lend itself to high risk behavior. Even
if one agent makes a hasty decision or issues an aggressive policy statement, it may be immediately
contradicted by another authority. 19 Individual leaders also have difficulty muting
[*623] criticism within the regime and
forcing all agents to agree on one course of action. While miscalculations and hasty behavior may be the rule at the micro-level, at
macro-level hasty action is checked by
the
the
competing nodes of power . While this structure could
admittedly be problematic with regard to the nuclear program depending on what form of command and control system to control accidents and
illicit transfer is established, it makes
the prospect of Iran engaging in a boldly offensive or miscalculated action
less realistic .
Iran isn’t a threat
Luttwak, 7 (Luttwak, senior associate – CSIS, professor – Georgetown and Berkeley, 5/26/’7
(Edward, “The middle of nowhere,” Prospect Magazine)
Mussolini syndrome is at work over Iran. All the symptoms are present, including tabulated lists of Iran’s
warships, despite the fact that most are over 30 years old; of combat aircraft, many of which (F-4s, Mirages, F-5s, F-14s)
have not flown in years for lack of spare parts; and of divisions and brigades that are so only in name.
There are awed descriptions of the Pasdaran revolutionary guards, inevitably described as “elite,” who do indeed strut around as
if they have won many a war, but who have actually fought only one—against Iraq, which they lost. As
for Iran’s claim to have defeated Israel by Hizbullah proxy in last year’s affray, the publicity was excellent but the substance went the
other way, with roughly 25 per cent of the best-trained men dead, which explains the tomb-like silence and
Now the
immobility of the once rumbustious Hizbullah ever since the ceasefire.
Then there is the new light cavalry of Iranian terrorism that is invoked to frighten us if all else fails. The usual middle east experts now
explain that if we annoy the ayatollahs, they will unleash terrorists who will devastate our lives, even though 30 years of “death to America”
invocations and vast
sums spent on maintaining a special international terrorism department have produced only one major
bombing in Saudi Arabia, in 1996, and two in the most permissive environment of Buenos Aires, in 1992 and 1994,
along with some assassinations of exiles in Europe.
It is true enough that if Iran’s nuclear installations are bombed in some overnight raid, there is likely to be some retaliation, but we live in
fortunate times in which
we have only the irritant of terrorism instead of world wars to worry
about—and Iran’s added contribution is not likely to leave much of an impression.
There may
be good reasons for not attacking Iran’s nuclear sites—including the very slow and uncertain progress of its uranium enrichment effort—but its
ability to strike back is not one of them. Even the seemingly fragile tanker traffic down the Gulf and through the straits of Hormuz
is not
and Iraq have both tried to attack it many times without much success,
and this time the US navy stands ready to destroy any airstrip or jetty from which attacks are
launched.
as vulnerable as it seems—Iran
As for the claim that the “Iranians” are united in patriotic support for the nuclear programme, no such nationality even exists. Out of Iran’s
population of 70m or so, 51 per cent are ethnically Persian, 24 per cent are Turks (“Azeris” is the regime’s term), with other minorities
comprising the remaining quarter. Many of Iran’s 16-17m Turks
are in revolt against Persian cultural imperialism; its
have started a serious insurgency; the Arab minority detonates bombs in Ahvaz; and
Baluch tribesmen attack gendarmes and revolutionary guards. If some 40 per cent of the British population were engaged in
separatist struggles of varying intensity, nobody would claim that it was firmly united around the London government. On top of this, many
of the Persian majority oppose the theocratic regime, either because they have become post-Islamic in reaction to its
many prohibitions, or because they are Sufis, whom the regime now persecutes almost as much as the small Baha’i
minority. So let us have no more reports from Tehran stressing the country’s national unity. Persian nationalism is a minority
position in a country where half the population is not even Persian. In our times, multinational states either
decentralise or break up more or less violently; Iran is not decentralising, so its future seems highly predictable,
while in the present not much cohesion under attack is to be expected.
5-6m Kurds
The U.S. can credibly deter iran
Posen 06 (Barry, Ford International Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, AlterNet, March 30, http://www.alternet.org/audits/34219/)
Some worry that Iran would be unconvinced by an American deterrent, choosing instead to
gamble that the United States would not make good on its commitments to weak Middle Eastern
states -- but the consequences of losing a gamble against a vastly superior nuclear power like the
U nited S tates are grave, and they do not require much imagination to grasp.
EXT – No Impact to Proliferation
No impact to Iran prolif – won’t increase aggression**
Pillar, 12 (Professor Security Studies Georgetown, Paul, March/April, “We Can Live with a
Nuclear Iran” Washington Monthly, Vol 44 Issue 3/4, p 13-19, EbscoHost)
Given the momentousness of such an endeavor and how much prominence the Iranian nuclear issue has been given, one might think that talk about exercising the military option would be backed up by extensive analysis of the threat
Strip away the bellicosity and political rhetoric, and what one finds is
not rigorous analysis but a mixture of fear, fanciful speculation, and crude stereotyping. There are indeed good
reasons to oppose Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons, and likewise many steps the United States and the international community can and should take to try to avoid that eventuality. But an Iran with a
bomb would not be anywhere near as dangerous as most people assume, and a war to try to stop it from acquiring one would be less
in question and the different ways of responding to it. But it isn't.
successful, and far more costly, than most people imagine. What difference would it make to Iran's behavior and influence if the country had a bomb? Even among those who believe that war with the Islamic Republic would be a bad
The notion that a nuclear weapon would turn Iran into a
significantly more dangerous actor that would imperil U.S. interests has become conventional wisdom, and it gets repeated so often by so
many diverse commentators that it seldom, if ever, is questioned. Hardly anyone debating policy on Iran asks exactly why a nuclear-armed Iran would be so dangerous. What passes for an
answer to that question takes two forms: one simple, and another that sounds more sophisticated. The simple argument is that Iranian leaders supposedly
don't think like the rest of us: they are religious fanatics who value martyrdom more than life, cannot be counted on to act rationally, and therefore cannot be deterred. On the campaign trail Rick
idea, this question has been subjected to precious little careful analysis.
Santorum has been among the most vocal in propounding this notion, asserting that Iran is ruled by the "equivalent of al-Qaeda," that its "theology teaches" that its objective is to "create a calamity," that it believes "the afterlife is
The trouble with
this image of Iran is that it does not reflect actual Iranian behavior. More than three decades of history
demonstrate that the Islamic Republic's rulers, like most rulers elsewhere, are overwhelmingly concerned with
preserving their regime and their power--in this life, not some future one. They are no more likely to let theological
imperatives lead them into self-destructive behavior than other leaders whose religious faiths
envision an afterlife. Iranian rulers may have a history of valorizing martyrdom--as they did when sending young militiamen to their deaths in near-hopeless attacks during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s-but they have never given any indication of wanting to become martyrs themselves. In fact, the Islamic Republic's conduct beyond its borders has been
characterized by caution. Even the most seemingly ruthless Iranian behavior has been motivated by specific, immediate concerns of regime survival. The government assassinated exiled Iranian
better than this life," and that its "principal virtue" is martyrdom. Newt Gingrich speaks in a similar vein about how Iranian leaders are suicidal jihadists, and says "it's impossible to deter them."
dissidents in Europe in the 1980s and '90s, for example, because it saw them as a counterrevolutionary threat. The assassinations ended when they started inflicting too much damage on Iran's relations with European governments.
The principles of deterrence are not invalid just because the
party to be deterred wears a turban and a beard. If the stereotyped image of Iranian leaders had
real basis in fact, we would see more aggressive and brash Iranian behavior in the Middle East
than we have. Some have pointed to the Iranian willingness to incur heavy losses in continuing the Iran-Iraq War. But that was a response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of the Iranian homeland, not some bellicose
Iran's rulers are constantly balancing a very worldly set of strategic interests.
venture beyond Iran's borders. And even that war ended with Ayatollah Khomeini deciding that the "poison" of agreeing to a cease-fire was better than the alternative. (He even described the ceasefire as "God's will"--so much for the
notion that the Iranians' God always pushes them toward violence and martyrdom.) Throughout history, it has always been worrisome when a revolutionary regime with ruthless and lethal internal practices moves to acquire a nuclear
weapon. But it is worth remembering that we have contended with far more troubling examples of this phenomenon than Iran. Millions died from forced famine and purges in Stalin's Soviet Union, and tens of millions perished during
the Great Leap Forward in Mao Tse-tung's China. China's development of a nuclear weapon (it tested its first one in 1964) seemed all the more alarming at the time because of Mao's openly professed belief that his country could lose
half its population in a nuclear war and still come out victorious over capitalism. But deterrence with China has endured for half a century, even during the chaos and fanaticism of Mao's Cultural Revolution. A few years after China
The more sophisticated-sounding argument about the supposed dangers of an Iranian
contends that the mere possession of
such a weapon would make Tehran more aggressive in its region. A dominant feature of this mode of
argument is "worst-casing," as exemplified by a pro-war article by Matthew Kroenig in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs. Kroenig's case rests on speculation after speculation about what
mischief Iran " could " commit in the Middle East, with almost no attention to whether Iran has
any reason to do those things, and thus to whether it ever would be likely to do them. Kroenig includes among his "coulds" a scary possibility that also served as a selling point of the Iraq War:
got the bomb, Richard Nixon built his global strategy around engagement with Beijing.
nuclear weapon--one heard less from politicians than from policy-debating intelligentsia--accepts that Iranian leaders are not suicidal but
the thought of a regime giving nuclear weapons or materials to a terrorist group. Nothing is said about why Iran or any other regime ever would have an incentive to do this. In fact, Tehran would have strong reasons not to do it. Why
would it want to lose control over a commodity that is scarce as well as dangerous? And how would it achieve deniability regarding its role in what the group subsequently did with the stuff? No regime in the history of the nuclear age
has ever been known to transfer nuclear material to a nonstate group. That history includes the Cold War, when the USSR had both a huge nuclear arsenal and patronage relationships with a long list of radical and revolutionary
clients. As for deniability, Iranian leaders have only to listen to rhetoric coming out of the United States to know that their regime would immediately be a suspect in any terrorist incidents involving a nuclear weapon. The more
sophisticated-sounding argument links Iran with sundry forms of objectionable behavior, either real or hypothetical, without explaining what difference the possession of a nuclear weapon would make. Perhaps the most extensive
effort to catalog what a nuclear-armed Iran might do outside its borders is a monograph published last year by Ash Jain of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Jain's inventory of possible Iranian nastiness is comprehensive,
nowhere is there an explanation of how Iran's
calculations--or anyone else's--would change with the introduction of a nuclear weapon. The most that Jain can offer is to assert
ranging from strong-arming Persian Gulf states to expanding a strategic relationship with Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. But
repeatedly that because Iran would be "shielded by a nuclear weapons capability," it might do some of these things. We never get an explanation of how, exactly, such a shield would work. Instead there is only a vague sense that a
nuclear weapon would lead Iran to feel its oats. Analysis on this subject need not be so vague. A rich body of doctrine was developed during the Cold War to outline the strategic differences that nuclear weapons do and do not make,
and what they can and cannot achieve for those who possess them. Such weapons are most useful in deterring aggression against one's own country, which is probably the main reason the Iranian regime is interested in developing
them. They are much less useful in "shielding" aggressive behavior outside one's borders, except in certain geopolitical situations in which their use becomes plausible. The Pakistani-Indian conflict may be such a situation. Pakistan's
nuclear arsenal may have enabled it to engage in riskier behavior in Kashmir than it otherwise would attempt, because nuclear weapons help to deter Pakistan's ultimate nightmare: an assault by the militarily superior India, which
could slice Pakistan in two and perhaps destroy it completely. But if you try to apply that logic to Iran, no one is playing the role of India. Iran has its own tensions and rivalries with its neighbors-including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, other
states on the Persian Gulf, and Pakistan. But none of these pose the kind of existential threat that Pakistan sees coming from India. Moreover, none of the current disputes between Iran and its neighbors (such as the one over
Nuclear
weapons matter insofar as there is a credible possibility that they will be used. This credibility is
hard to achieve, however, in anything short of circumstances that might involve the destruction
of one's nation. In the case of Iran, there would need to be some specific aggressive or subversive act that
Tehran is holding back from performing now for fear of retaliation--from the Americans, the Israelis, the Saudis, or someone else. Further,
in order for Iran to neutralize the threat of retaliation, the desired act of mischief would have to
be so important to Tehran that it could credibly threaten to escalate the matter to the level of
nuclear war. Proponents of a war with Iran have been unable to provide an example of a
ownership of some small islands also claimed by the United Arab Emirates) come close to possessing the nation-defining significance that the Kashmir conflict poses for both Pakistan and India.
scenario that meets these criteria, however. The impact of Iran possessing a bomb is therefore
far less dire than the alarmist conventional wisdom suggests.
To be sure, the world would be a better place without an Iranian nuclear
weapon. An Iranian bomb would be a setback for the global nuclear nonproliferation regime, for example, and the arms control community is legitimately concerned about it. It would also raise the possibility that other regional states,
such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt, might be more inclined to try to acquire nuclear weapons as well. But that raises the question of why these states have not already done so, despite decades of facing both Israel's nuclear force and
tensions with Iran. Ever since John F. Kennedy mused that there might be fifteen to twenty-five states with nuclear weapons by the 1970s, estimates of the pace of proliferation--like estimates of the pace of Iran's nuclear program-have usually been too high. Furthermore, it's not clear that any of this would cause substantial and direct damage to U.S. interests. Indeed, the alarmists offer more inconsistent arguments when discussing the dynamics of a Middle
East in which rivals of Iran acquire their own nuclear weapons. If, as the alarmists project, nuclear weapons would appreciably increase Iranian influence in the region, why wouldn't further nuclear proliferation--which the alarmists
also project--negate this effect by bestowing a comparable benefit on the rivals? In the absence of further proliferation among Iran's rivals, there is a chance that Iran would be marginally bolder if it possessed a nuclear weapon--and
that the United States and other countries in the Middle East would be correspondingly less bold. Perceptions of strength do matter. But two further observations are important. First,
once concrete
confrontations occur, strategic realities trump perceptions. One of the conjectures in Jain's monograph, for instance, is that Hezbollah and Hamas might
become emboldened if Iran extended a nuclear umbrella over them. But in the face of Israel's formidable nuclear superiority, would Iranian
leaders really be willing to risk Tehran to save Gaza? The Iranians could not get anyone to believe such a thing. Second, one must ultimately ask whether the
conjectured consequences of an Iranian bomb would be worse than a war with Iran. The conjectures are just that. They are not concrete, not based on nuclear doctrine or rigorous analysis, and not even likely. They are
worst-case speculations, and not adequate justifications for going to war.
EXT – No Iran Proliferation
Prefer our ev—their authors continuously inflate threats
Innocent, 11 (Foreign policy analyst – Cato, member – IISS, 12/7/’11, Malou, http://www.catoat-liberty.org/ignore-the-hawks-on-iran-too/)
More
credible voices suggest otherwise. The nonprofit Arms Control Association (ACA) observed that the most-
recent IAEA report suggests “[I]t remains apparent that a
nuclear-armed Iran is still not imminent nor is it
inevitable.” Iran was engaged in nuclear weapons development activities until it stopped in 2003, and as Cato’s Justin Logan
observes, the IAEA’s own report shows there is no definitive evidence of Iran’s diversion of fissile material.
When Pletka was called out for her “less than a year” prediction, she turned up her nose and snapped:
Quibblers will suggest that there are important “ifs” in both these assessments. And yes, the key “if” is “if” Iran decides to build a bomb. So, I
suppose when I said “less than a year away from having a nuclear weapon,” I should have added, “if they want one.” But… isn’t that the point?
Do we want to leave this decision up to Khamenei?
Confronted with ambiguous information, and forced to infer intentions, hawks evince the very same arrogance and
overconfidence that helped open the door for Iranian influence in the region in the first place by
toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime (Pletka advocated repeatedly for this leading up to the 2003 invasion). Pletka and others who
years ago had the gall to argue that Iraq “will end when it ends” are today worthy of being ignored on Iran.
No Iran prolif – security estimates overblown*
Hymans, 13 (Professor IR USC, 2/18, Jacques, “Iran Is Still Botching the Bomb” Foreign
Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139013/jacques-e-c-hymans/iran-is-stillbotching-the-bomb)
Israeli intelligence officials quietly indicated that they have downgraded their assessments of Iran's
ability to build a nuclear bomb. This is surprising because less than six months ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned from the tribune of the
United Nations that the Iranian nuclear D-Day might come as early as 2013. Now, Israel believes that Iran will not have its first nuclear
device before 2015 or 20 16 . The news comes as a great relief. But it also raises questions. This was a serious intelligence failure, one that has led some of Israel's
own officials to wonder aloud, "Did we cry wolf too early?" Indeed, Israel has consistently overestimated Iran's nuclear program
for decades.
At the end of January,
In 1992, then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres announced that Iran was on pace to have the bomb by 1999. Israel's many subsequent estimates have become increasingly frenzied but have been consistently wrong. U.S. intelligence agencies have been only
slightly less alarmist, and they, too, have had to extend their timelines repeatedly. Overestimating Iran's nuclear potential might not seem like a big problem. However, similar, unfounded fears were the basis for President George W. Bush's preemptive attack against Iraq and its nonexistent
weapons of mass destruction. Israel and the United States need to make sure that this kind of human and foreign policy disaster does not happen again. What explains Israel's most recent intelligence failure? Israeli officials have suggested that Iran decided to downshift its nuclear program in
response to international sanctions and Israel's hawkish posture. But that theory falls apart when judged against Tehran's own recent aggressiveness. In the past few months, Iran has blocked the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from gaining access to suspect facilities, stalled on
diplomatic meetings, and announced a "successful" space shot and the intention to build higher-quality centrifuges. These are not the actions of a state that is purposely slowing down its nuclear program. Even more to the point, if Tehran were really intent on curbing its nuclear work, an
explicit announcement of the new policy could be highly beneficial for the country: many states would praise it, sanctions might be lifted, and an Israeli or U.S. military attack would become much less likely. But Iran has not advertised the downshift, and its only modest concession of late
has been to convert some of its 20 percent enriched uranium to reactor fuel. It is doubtful that the Iranians would decide to slow down their nuclear program without asking for anything in return. A second hypothesis is that Israeli intelligence estimates have been manipulated for political
purposes. This possibility is hard to verify, but it cannot be dismissed out of hand. Preventing the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran is Netanyahu's signature foreign policy stance, and he had an acute interest in keeping the anti-Iran pot boiling in the run-up to last month's parliamentary
elections, which he nearly lost. Now, with the elections over, perhaps Israeli intelligence officials feel freer to convey a more honest assessment of Iran's status. This theory of pre-election spin is not very satisfying, however, because it fails to explain why Israeli governments of all political
orientations have been making exaggerated claims about Iran for 20 years -- to say nothing of the United States' own overly dire predictions. The most plausible reason for the consistent pattern of overstatement is that
Israeli and U.S.
models of Iranian proliferation are flawed. Sure enough, Israeli officials have acknowledged that
they did not anticipate the high number of technical problems Iranian scientists have run into
recently. Some of those mishaps may have been the product of Israeli or U.S. efforts at sabotage. For instance, the 2010 Stuxnet computer virus attack on Iran's nuclear facilities
reportedly went well. But the long-term impact of such operations is usually small -- or nonexistent: the IAEA and other reputable sources have dismissed the highly publicized claims of a major
Iran's nuclear program has
probably suffered much more from Keystone Kops-like blunders: mistaken technical choices
recent explosion at Iran's Fordow uranium-enrichment plant, for instance. Rather than being hampered by James Bond exploits,
and poor implementation by the Iranian nuclear establishment. There is ample reason to believe that such slipups
have been the main cause of Iran's extremely slow pace of nuclear progress all along. The country is rife with
other botched projects, especially in the chaotic public sector. It is unlikely that the Iranian nuclear program is immune to these problems. This is not a knock against the quality of Iranian
scientists and engineers, but rather against the organizational structures in which they are trapped. In such an environment, where top-down mismanagement and political agendas are abundant,
even easy technical steps often lead to dead ends and pitfalls. Iran is not the only state with a dysfunctional nuclear weapons program.
As I argued in a 2012 Foreign Affairs article, since the 1970s, most states seeking entry into the nuclear weapons club
have run their weapons programs poorly, leading to a marked slowdown in global proliferation.
The cause of this mismanagement is the poor quality of the would-be proliferator's state institutions. Libya and North Korea are two classic examples. Libya essentially made no progress, even
after 30 years of trying. North Korea has gotten somewhere -- but only after 50 years, and with many high-profile embarrassments along the way. Iran, whose nuclear weapons drive began in the
the technical problems
it has encountered are more than unpredictable accidents -- they are structurally determined .
Since U.S. and Israeli intelligence services have failed to appreciate the weakness of Iran's nuclear weapons program, they have not adjusted
their analytical models accordingly. Thus, there is reason to be skeptical about Israel's updated
mid-1980s, seems to be following a similar trajectory. Considering Iran in the broader context of the proliferation slowdown, it becomes clear that
estimate of an Iranian bomb in the next two or three years. The new date is probably just
the product of another ad hoc readjustment, but what is needed is a fundamental rethinking. As the little shepherd boy learned, crying wolf too early
and too often destroys one's credibility and leaves one vulnerable and alone. In order to rebuild public trust in their analysis, Jerusalem and Washington need to explain the assumptions on which
their scary estimates are based, provide alternative estimates that are also consistent with the data they have gathered, and give a clear indication of the chance that their estimates are wrong and
will have to be revised again. The Iranian nuclear effort is highly provocative. The potential for war is real. That is why Israel and
the U nited S tates need to
avoid peddling unrealistic, worse-than-worst-case scenarios.
No centrifuge acquisition – media reports are a hoax
Butt, 13 (Research Professor at James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 2-20, YousafFormer Scientist at Federation of American Scientists, Physicist at High-Energy Astrophysics
Division at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, , “Iran centrifuge magnet story
technically questionable” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/webedition/op-eds/iran-centrifuge-magnet-story-technically-questionable)
Last week, the Washington Post reported that "purchase orders obtained by nuclear researchers show an attempt by Iranian agents to buy 100,000 … ring-shaped magnets" and that such "highly
specialized magnets used in centrifuge machines … [are] a sign that the country may be planning a major expansion of its nuclear program." As evidence, the Post's Joby Warrick cited a report
authored by David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security PDF (ISIS); dated Feb. 13, the report says that an Iranian firm, Jahan Tech Rooyan Pars Co., made an inquiry
There are serious
deficiencies in both the Washington Post story and the assertions in the ISIS report. Given that issues of war and peace may hang on the
veracity of such claims, the assertions warrant careful scrutiny. The magnets in question have many uses besides centrifuges and
are not only, as Warrick describes them, "highly specialized magnets used in centrifuge machines." Such ceramic ring magnets
are everyday items and have been used in loudspeakers, for example, for more than half a century. The ISIS report neglects to explain the many
other applications for such ceramic ring magnets and jumps to the conclusion that the inquiry is
surely related to Iran's nuclear program. Why ISIS does not offer alternate and more plausible applications of these unspecialized magnets is a puzzle. Such
"posted on a Chinese commercial website … to buy 100,000 ring magnets." As Warrick goes on to explain: "it is unclear whether the attempt succeeded."
magnets are used in a variety of electronic equipment. For instance, one vendor outlines some of the various possible uses in speakers, direct current brushless motors, and magnetic resonance
imaging equipment. This is not the first time ring magnets have surfaced in allegations related to centrifuge applications. Almost exactly a decade ago, as the United States was preparing to
invade Iraq, then-director of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei said that reports regarding similar ring magnets in Iraq were unrelated to centrifuges: With respect to
reports about Iraq's efforts to import high-strength permanent magnets -- or to achieve the capability for producing such magnets -- for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme, I should note
The IAEA has verified
that previously acquired magnets have been used for missile guidance systems, industrial
machinery, electricity meters, and field telephones. Through visits to research and production sites, reviews of engineering drawings and analyses of sample
that, since 1998, Iraq has purchased high-strength magnets for various uses. Iraq has declared inventories of magnets of twelve different designs.
magnets, IAEA experts familiar with the use of such magnets in centrifuge enrichment have verified that none of the magnets that Iraq has declared could be used directly for a centrifuge magnetic bearing. Robert Kelley, a nuclear
engineer and former IAEA chief inspector and deputy leader of the agency's Iraq Action Team, told me last week that, between 2002 and 2003, his group "tracked similar ring magnets that Iraq was trying to procure (openly in
insecure channels) and found they were for field telephones …. We got started with an ‘intelligence tip' and ran it to ground. Nothing whatsoever to do with centrifuges." The Iraq Survey Group also weighed in on this issue, saying
PDF it "has not uncovered information indicating that the magnet production capability being pursued by Iraq beginning in 2000 was intended to support a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment program. … The declared use of the
magnet production lines were for production of ring magnets in the Saham Saddam Missile and for field telephones." A pair of ring magnets is used in the top suspension bearing of the IR-1 gas centrifuges. As others have already
noted, it seems to make little sense to order ceramic magnets that are, as ISIS describes, "almost exactly" the right dimensions. If one is intending to purchase 100,000 ceramic ring magnets for critical high-speed centrifuge
applications, why not order them exactly the right size? Ceramics are almost impossible to machine due to their brittle nature and are generally ordered to the precise specifications desired. Albright's suggestion in the ISIS report PDF
that "some minor re-design would be necessary of the top end cap and top magnetic bearing of the IR-1 [centrifuge] design but these are seen as fairly trivial" could be correct. But why would a purchaser wish to redesign, re-machine,
and re-test tens of thousands of centrifuges, instead of ordering the correctly sized part in the first place? Although ISIS redacted measurements in the English translation of the inquiry to purchase the 100,000 magnets, it did not redact
them from the original shown on the last page of the ISIS report PDF. The original clearly states that the magnets have "BHmax Min 3MGo"; MGo is shorthand for mega-Gauss Oersted, a measure of the magnetic energy stored in the
magnets. (B and H are, respectively, the magnetic flux density and the magnetic field strength.) This value is substantially less than the 10 MGo trigger level given for centrifuge applications in Annex 3 of the Notifications of Exports
to Iraq mandated by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1051 (1996). Although magnets with an energy product of 3 MGO could be consistent with applications in suspension bearings of the older IR-1 centrifuges, they are
also consistent with a host of other applications. Curiously, the inquiry to the China-based company that is shown on the last page of the ISIS report PDF is very casual and overt. The alleged inquiry states, "Dear Sir We are a great
factory in south of Iran and for our new project we need 100.000 pcs Ferrite Barium strontium ring magnet . … we would like buy from you [sic] company. We should be glad if you supply this magnet for us." Presumably, an attempt
to source 100,000 parts related to Iran's controversial and often secretive nuclear program would not be conducted quite so openly. Not only would such an overt attempt at sourcing the ring magnets be inconsistent with the secrecy
surrounding Iran's nuclear program; it would also be at odds with procurement best-practices, for several reasons. First, such a large order would likely drive up the market price and perhaps even signal to the supplier to choke off the
supply, in hopes of obtaining a better price later. Also, before indicating that such a huge order may be in the works, a serious engineering operation would likely obtain a few sample magnets to formally qualify them. Such an order
would, more reasonably, be directed to the manufacturer or direct supplier (in this case, apparently, a rather small Indian firm, Ferrito Plastronics), rather than to a Chinese middleman. Obtaining 100,000 ceramic ring magnets without
sample qualification would be highly risky and unprofessional. It would be inconsistent with Iran's generally excellent record in systems management and engineering PDF involving a range of technologies and industries. Both the
Washington Post story and the ISIS report on which it is based repeatedly call the inquiry a "purchase order" or "order." This is a mischaracterization. The evidence presented (Figures 3 and 4 in the ISIS report) merely shows a web
inquiry as to whether the supplier has any interest in discussing the question further. There is no mention of money, delivery dates, or letters of credit. All of these items would be part of a formal purchase order. The apparent
manufacturer or supplier of the magnets in question, Ferrito Plastronics, is evidently a "tiny firm in a dark alley in Chennai's electronic spare parts hub on Meeran Sahib Street." According to the Times of India, "the Chennai firm does
supply magnets. But these, avers company proprietor Bala Subramanian, are the ones used in loudspeakers, coils, and medical equipment. Besides these, there are decorative magnets for fridges." The proprietor states that his monthly
Although the purpose of the alleged
inquiry is subject to interpretation, it seems unlikely to be related to Iran's nuclear program. Assuming
that the request to buy 100,000 magnets is genuine, it would be consistent with, for instance, an Iranian loudspeaker company
interested in obtaining such ceramic ring magnets. That is just one possible hypothesis, of course, but it seems a better
explanation of the alleged inquiry than the suggestion of an overt attempt by Iran's nuclear
program to source 100,000 of the wrong-sized ceramic ring magnets from a tiny Indian company
via a Chinese middleman. It is worth noting that the best Western intelligence concludes that no nuclear
weapons work is going on in Iran right now, and that Iran is not an imminent nuclear threat. James
Clapper, the US director of national intelligence , has confirmed PDF that he has "a high level of
turnover is slightly less than $2,000. Such a firm would seem unlikely to be the optimal source for 100,000 high-quality centrifuge ring magnets.
confidence" that no nuclear weaponization work is underway in Iran . Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta has also weighed in: "Are [Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No ." And in an
interview for a 2011 article in the New Yorker, ElBaradei said PDF that he did not see "a shred of evidence" that Iran was
pursuing the bomb after 2003, adding, "I don't believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat
posed by Iran." Given these expert assessments, reporters and editors should raise the bar for the evidence
underpinning stories of alleged Iranian nuclear weapons-related work . This Washington Post article is the second
in about three months to make serious unsubstantiated claims regarding Iran's nuclear program. In the previous story, the Associated Press used flimsy evidence to suggest that Iran may be
the media reporting on Iran's controversial nuclear program have a duty to do
a better job of vetting evidence and sources. Similarly, non-governmental organizations that are
supposed to supply unbiased expert advice should strive to provide professional analyses that lay
out all possible explanations and do not jump to unwarranted conclusions. We have all been witness to what may happen
when a fictional threat is spun up over non-existent weapons of mass destruction -- the result isn't pretty. When news reports cast thin evidence in
hyperbolic terms, the public is invited to run rampant with speculation about Iran's nuclear
program. At a time when military action is apparently being seriously contemplated, the international community needs to look past trivialities,
focus on the facts, and find realistic opportunities for ending the Iranian nuclear standoff.
working on a nuclear bomb. Clearly,
No prolif risk – just fear-mongering
Mueller, 12 (Professor PolSci Ohio State, 11-19, John, “History and Nuclear Rationality”
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/history-nuclear-rationality)
We seem to be at it again. Just about the
entire foreign-policy establishment has taken it as a central article of
faith that nuclear proliferation is a dire security threat and that all possible measures, including even war if
necessary, must
be taken to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Concern is justified, but the
experience of two-thirds of a century suggests that if Iran does obtain the weapons, it will use
them in the same way others have: to stoke the national ego and to deter real or imagined threats.
For the mostpart, the few countries to which the weapons have proliferated have found them a notable
waste of time, money, effort and scientific talent. They haven’t even found much benefit in
rattling them from time to time. This was the case even when the weapons were taken on by large countries with
seemingly deranged leaders. Thus, when he got nukes, the Soviet Union’s Stalin was plotting to “transform
nature” by planting lots of trees and China’s Mao had recently launched a campaign to remake his society that created a famine
killing tens of millions. It was simplicity and spook on steroids. It is scarcely ever observed that nuclear
proliferation has thus far had consequences that are substantially benign. This suggests that
simplicity and spook continue to prevail up there at that foreign-policy summit. Send in the chimps.
EXT – Wont Close the Strait
Alternate routes solve Hormuz closure
Luft, 12 (Director Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, 7-19-’12 (Gal- Senior Advisor
United States Energy Security Council, “Choke Point” Foreign Policy,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/ 2012/07/19/choke_points)
So far, Iran's
threats have invited yawns from the oil market, which seems to be more concerned
about declining demand from stagnant economies than a drop in supply. (Oil prices have dropped nearly 20 percent
since April.) And there are good reasons to think Iran is bluffing : At its narrowest, the Strait is about 25 miles wide -- a fact that even
the most neurotic traders seem to have grasped. Blocking an area as wide as Singapore will require a vast and
sustained naval effort that the Iranians cannot muster. To be sure, they could mine coastal waters and harass the
occasional vessel, but closing the Strait for a meaningful length of time is a far-fetched scenario
that would undoubtedly trigger a swift and decisive U.S. military response. Yet Tehran would have us
think otherwise. What the mullahs, their generals, and the 100 Iranian lawmakers who've expressed support for the bill to block the Strait should
know is that, like the Ottomans a century ago, they are likely to be the prime casualties of any real or threatened disruption to maritime trade. The
reason is simple: It's not about the heavy price the Iranians would pay if they went through with a military effort to close the Straits. In fact,
they're paying the price already, as talk of closure has already made the Strait of Hormuz increasingly irrelevant. In recent weeks, two
pipelines that bypass the Strait have become operational. In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the Abu Dhabi
Crude Oil Pipeline can now pump as much as 1.5 million barrels per day from Habshan in Abu
Dhabi some 230 miles south to Fujairah in the Gulf of Oman. This represents 60 percent of the UAE's oil exports already, and this
capacity can be easily expanded to almost 2 million barrels per day. In addition to becoming the new
outlet to the Arabian Sea, Fujairah will have storage space for 12 million barrels as well as three sub-sea pipelines and mooring buoys for
deepwater tanker loading. Saudi
Arabia has also invested in infrastructure that enables it to bypass
the Iranians. In June, it reopened the Iraq Pipeline through Saudi Arabia (IPSA), which was confiscated from Iraq in 2001 and travels
from Iraq across Saudi Arabia to a Red Sea port north of Yanbu. This pipeline will be able to carry 1.65 million barrels per day. Together,
these two pipelines could eventually reduce oil traffic in the Strait by 25 percent. But this is only
the beginning. At least two more projects connecting Saudi Arabia to Oman and Yemen are
under consideration. Iraq also has an outlet, which is currently being expanded, to the port of Ceyhan in Turkey via the KirkukCeyhan pipeline. Should whatever regime replaces Syrian President Bashar al-Assad be interested, Iraq may also revive the Iraq-Syria pipeline as
another means of shipping crude from southern fields to the Mediterranean. These
projects have the potential to remove
millions of additional barrels from Hormuz's busy schedule. But it is not only Iran's neighbors who are behind
the efforts to reduce the strategic importance of Hormuz on their export lifeline -- China's also involved. Like Tsarist Russia (though for the
opposite reason), fuel-hungry China is fixated on keeping its economic lifelines open and under control. China is one of the top purchasers of
Iranian oil, and though it has been less than cooperative in the international boycott over Tehran's nuclear program, its allegiance to Iran pales in
comparison to its dependency on the other Gulf energy exporters -- Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and the UAE -- which in total supply 35 percent
of China's crude imports, or three times the volume supplied by Iran. Securing the flow of oil from those countries is therefore a paramount
objective for Beijing. It was a Chinese state-owned construction company that built the pipe to Fujairah, and there are also plans in the works to
build an oil pipeline connecting Pakistan's Arabian Sea port of Gwadar to Xinjiang province in western China. If built, this pipeline will be able
to collect oil from African ports and the alternative terminals mentioned above and pump it directly to China. Much of Iran's current regional
clout derives from its geographical location, but its antagonistic
behavior is driving the country's neighbors
and clients to seek ways to defuse this power and eliminate their dependence on the Strait
of Hormuz. The effort to reduce Hormuz traffic presents the West with a new opportunity
to augment its current Iran containment strategy while eliminating for good one of the biggest
impediments to global energy security: a choke point that for decades has enabled rogue regional players
to hold the world economy hostage. Using steel on the ground rather than aircraft carriers in the water, world powers can do
to Iran what Russia did to the Ottomans. This time around, however, it won't require a world war.
Iran won’t close the Strait
Saul, 10 (Jonathan, interviewing Iranian and American Security analysts Peter Pham and Meir
Javendanfar,
http://archives.dawn.com/archives/7274)
Iran is unlikely to risk blocking or mining the Strait of Hormuz if tension with the West
rises, because it stands to lose vital oil revenues from closing the strategic waterway and
lacks the military capability. Iran has threatened to close the strait, a vital route for world oil supplies, if it is attacked over its nuclear ambitions. Some Iran
watchers say Tehran could opt to block the strait if more severe sanctions are imposed. Western powers suspect Iran`s nuclear activities are aimed at developing atomic weapons, not generating
electricity as Tehran insists. Analysts believe the threat itself is enough to raise oil prices to well above $100 a barrel, potentially damaging a still fragile global economic recovery. “Oil prices
rose by around $12 a barrel when Israel went into Lebanon in 2006 and neither of those countries are even involved in oil production,” said Paul Harris, head of natural resources risk
management at Bank of Ireland. “You`d be looking at least double that kind of jump from an event on that scale in the region.” Many analysts say
Tehran cannot afford
to risk a prolonged disruption of the narrow waterway, which borders Iran`s coastline at the mouth of the Gulf,
and through which 40 per cent of all seaborne oil trade, about 17 million barrels, passes
daily. Iran itself exports around 2.4 million barrels daily – most of it via the Strait of
Hormuz. “They would cut their own throats because two-thirds of the Iranian
government`s budget comes from exports from the same strait,” said J. Peter Pham, an adviser
on strategic matters to US and foreign governments. “Iran gains more from the threat of
closing the strait than actually closing it.” `Fraught with problems` The strait, just 21 miles wide at its
narrowest point, lies between Oman and Iran. Neighbouring oil-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia, the world`s largest crude oil
exporter, are dependent on its shipping lanes. “Closing
the strait would reduce Iran`s leverage in the region
as it would put Persian Gulf countries squarely in the camp of America,” Iran analyst Meir
Javedanfar said, adding that it could tempt them into financing Iranian opposition
movements.Many analysts believe that, if Iran retaliated, it would choose to mine the strait`s sea lanes
as it did during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Military analysts believe Iran has three mine-laying ships and three mine-laying helicopters, plus
three Russian-built Kilo class submarines. “Military
operations on the offence are fraught with problems,”
said Eugene Gholz, professor of national security policy at the University of Texas. “The Iranians would have to do it over
and over again every day to maintain the disruption.” Global intelligence company Stratfor said the
strait`s cramped, shallow waters made submarine activity difficult. “In any event, the Iranian
navy does not have enough Kilos to have any confidence in its ability to sustain submarine
operations for any meaningful period after hostilities began,” it said in a study.
Iran won’t shutdown Hormuz – it’s suicide
Nader, 12 (Senior Policy Analyst RAND, 10-2, Alireza, “Will Iran Close the Strait of
Hormuz?” United States Institute of Peace Iran Primer,
http://www.rand.org/commentary/2012/10/02/USIP.html)
Iran's naval forces cannot permanently hold or close the Strait, however. The United States
would be able to neutralize Iran's military assets, given its overwhelming firepower. And
Iran's conventional navy would not be able to reinforce the Revolutionary Guards, since its
antiquated frigates and corvettes, most dating from the Shah's time, would be sitting ducks for U.S. fighters. Iran's three Russian-supplied Kilo
submarines could also be quickly detected and sunk. Iran
might instead seek to repeat the strategy used by Hezbollah in the 2006
war with Israel—holding ground by bleeding the adversary. It may hope to emerge as the political and psychological
victor by hitting a few U.S. warships, perhaps even a carrier, causing high oil prices, and increasing international pressure—all tactics designed to
force the United States to stop its strikes. Impeding shipping in the narrow Strait would give Iran much-needed leverage since it cannot
technically win a military confrontation against the United States. Just
by threatening to close the Strait, Iran
increases pressure on the United States to restrain Israel from attacking Iran. Other key players—including major oil
importers such as China, Japan, and India—would be reluctant to support military action because of heavy dependence on Persian Gulf oil.
Closing off the Gulf sealanes would also limit the flow from Saudi Arabia and the neighboring oil-rich sheikhdoms, which Iran may calculate
gives it a psychological edge. But
the Islamic Republic would also pay a heavy price for fighting in the Persian
forces could be destroyed without first inflicting substantial damage, which would
humiliate the regime. Despite military rhetoric, Iran's naval forces are poorly matched against the U.S. Fifth fleet. Iran is also
heavily dependent on freedom of navigation through the Persian Gulf to export its own oil ,
especially important given its increasingly troubled economy. Most Iranian exports and imports flow through the
Strait. Iran may be more dependent on the Strait than other regional players, such as Saudi Arabia
Gulf. Its
or the United Arab Emirates, both of which are building pipelines to bypass the strategic waterway. Despite repeated warnings, the regime's
intentions and capabilities remain unclear. Its
threats in the Strait may instead be part of a long-term
strategy to buy time, to forestall a military conflict while working on its nuclear program. In the meantime, Iranian posturing in the
Persian Gulf is a powerful form of deterrence against Israeli or U.S. strikes.
Environment Das/Turns
***Beaches***
1NC Beaches DA
Beaches are key to the economy-offshore drilling destroys them
Sierra Club ’09 (Sierra Club, America's largest and most influential grassroots environmental
organization, 8-09, “Don’t Rig Our Coastal Economy,”
www.sierraclub.org/habitat/downloads/2009-08-coasts.pdf)
vast¶ majority of America’s coastline,
once protected, is now actively being pursued for¶ development by the oil and gas industry. New
offshore drilling would jeopardize our¶ beaches, coastal environments, and booming
tourism economy.¶ While only a handful of big oil companies stand to profit from drilling our coasts, all¶ Americans stand
to profit from keeping our beaches clean, healthy and pristine. ¶ Tourism is a vital part of
our nation’s economy, and beaches are an essential piece.¶ According to the World Tourism & Travel Council,
in 2009 alone the United States¶ travel and tourism economy is expected to directly and indirectly produce
13.8 million¶ jobs and generate $1.35 trillion.¶ 1¶ That makes America’s coastal recreation
and tourism¶ industry the second largest employer in the nation, workers who serve the 180 million¶
Americans who make over 2 billion trips to our coasts every year. Tourism in America is¶ a trillion-dollar industry
with coastal communities contributing over $700 billion¶ annually to our economy¶ 2¶ . ¶
These valuable beaches and coastlines will be forever changed if industry is given a green¶
light to drill. Oil and gas rigs would deter tourists from visiting coastal communities,¶ would stress
wildlife, and would threaten to contaminate the waters where American¶ families swim, boat, and
fish. The risk to our coastal economy from offshore drilling is¶ just too great. ¶ But our coasts are not
Our coasts are now facing more threats than they have in almost three decades. The
solely about jobs. Millions of Americans share fond childhood¶ memories of building sandcastles, learning to ride a wave, fishing, or watching
seabirds,¶ dolphins and whales at the beach. Each year, families from all over the world flock to our ¶ beaches to continue this tradition. This
summer,¶ given the state of the economy, we can expect¶ even more families to keep their vacations local¶ and head for the beach.¶ Our coasts
and marine waters provide the¶ economic lifeblood for thousands of tourism¶ and fishing communities, generating billions of¶ dollars and
sustaining millions of jobs. In¶ addition to being a favorite American vacation¶ destination, beaches provide a sanctuary for fish¶ and wildlife and
are a critical part of America’s¶ natural heritage—from sea to shining sea. But¶ these coasts are in jeopardy.¶ Big Oil, which continues to
experience record profits, has teamed up with industry¶ lobbyists and allies in Congress to push their agenda and sacrifice our coasts for their ¶
financial gain.¶ If
we want to see what our coasts will look like if the oil industry has its way, we
have to¶ look no further than Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi. For years, coastlines in¶
these states did not enjoy the same protections from drilling as beaches in the rest of the¶ country. As a result, the oil industry was able to leave its
ugly mark. Years
of wear and¶ tear from oil operations have destroyed many coastal wetlands
of the Louisiana Bayou.¶ Thanks in large part to drilling, Louisiana is losing 25 square
miles of coastal wetlands¶ each year. These wetlands once provided a natural barrier from storms like Hurricane¶ Katrina.
Extinction
Austin 9 (Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman –
Resident Fellow – American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6,
http://www.aei.org/article/100187)
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and
global chaos followed
hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible,
economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome
is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The
threat
of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million
migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year.
A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability.
The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with
China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has
had to put down riots in its Far East as
well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic
largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing
threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the
threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have
passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are
being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack
of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the
streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants,
largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants
since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in
the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A
prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would
dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the
United States, unresolved
ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence
that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce
into a big bang .
2NC Competitiveness Impact
beaches key to the econ and competitiveness
Houston ’08 (James R. Houston, the Director of the Army Corp of Engineers’ Engineer
Research and Development Center’s Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Summer 2008, “The
economic value of beaches – A 2008 update,” Shore & Beach 76.3, google it)
Houston (1995a; 1996; 2002) de-scribed the economic value of¶ America’s beaches. He noted that¶ the
travel and tourism
industry is becoming increasingly dominant in economies¶ throughout the world. However, few
realize that travel and tourism is already¶ America’s largest industry, employer, and¶ earner of
foreign exchange; and beaches¶ are its leading tourist destination. Although high-technology
industries grab¶ the news, the U.S. runs a trade deficit in¶ these industries and high-technology jobs¶
are increasingly “offshored” in today’s¶ world economy. Travel and tourism is¶ difficult to offshore and is
providing the¶ economic growth, jobs, and foreign exchange that make the U.S. competitive¶
in a world economy. However, tourists¶ have choices in international tourism, and¶ the U.S. has
neglected tourism and infrastructure investments supporting tourism. This paper updates and lends support to the conclusions of Houston¶ (1995a; 1996; 2002) on the economic¶ importance of beaches to the national¶ economy.
Competitiveness is key to hegemony
Segal 4 (Adam, Senior Fellow in China Studies – Council on Foreign Relations, “Is America
Losing Its Edge?”, Foreign Affairs, November / December, Lexis)
The United States' global
primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and
industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological
entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was
Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the
U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from
Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and
technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations.
The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising.
Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing
database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of
computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers,
biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States'
technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system.
Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant
threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing
to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy;
to keep its privileged position in the world, the United
States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.
Global nuclear war
Arbatov 7 (Alexei, Member – Russian Academy of Sciences and Editor – Russia in Global
Affairs, “Is a New Cold War Imminent?”, Russia in Global Affairs, 5(3), July / September,
http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/20/1130.html)
However, the low probability of a new Cold War and the
collapse of American unipolarity (as a political doctrine, if not in
many
difficulties and threats. For example, if the Russia-NATO confrontation persists, it can do much damage
to both parties and international security. Or, alternatively, if Kosovo secedes from Serbia, this may provoke similar
reality) cannot be a cause for complacency. Multipolarity, existing objectively at various levels and interdependently, holds
processes in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniestria, and involve Russia in armed conflicts with Georgia and Moldova, two countries that are
supported by NATO. Another flash point involves Ukraine. In the event of Kiev’s sudden admission into the North Atlantic Alliance (recently
sanctioned by the U.S. Congress), such a move may divide Ukraine and provoke mass disorders there, thus making it difficult for Russia and the
West to refrain from interfering. Meanwhile, U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in Central and Eastern Europe may cause Russia to
withdraw from the INF Treaty and resume programs for producing intermediate-range missiles. Washington may respond by deploying similar
missiles in Europe, which would dramatically increase the vulnerability of Russia’s strategic forces and their control and warning systems. This
could make the stage for nuclear confrontation even tenser. Other “centers of power” would immediately derive benefit from the growing RussiaWest standoff, using it in their own interests. China
would receive an opportunity to occupy even more advantageous
positions in its economic and political relations with Russia, the U.S. and Japan, and would consolidate its
influence in Central and South Asia and the Persian Gulf region. India, Pakistan, member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations and some exalted regimes in Latin America would hardly miss their chance, either. A multipolar world that is not
moving toward nuclear disarmament is a world of an expanding Nuclear Club. While Russia and the West continue to argue with each other,
states that are capable of developing nuclear weapons of their own will jump at the opportunity. The
probability of nuclear
weapons being used in a regional conflict will increase significantly . International Islamic
extremism and terrorism will increase dramatically; this threat represents the reverse side of
globalization. The situation in Afghanistan, Central Asia, the Middle East, and North and East
Africa will further destabilize. The wave of militant separatism, trans-border crime and terrorism
will also infiltrate Western Europe, Russia, the U.S., and other countries. The surviving
disarmament treaties (the N on- P roliferation T reaty, the C onventional Armed F orces in
E urope Treaty, and the C omprehensive Nuclear T est B an T reaty) will collapse. In a worstcase scenario, there is the chance that an adventuresome regime will initiate a missile launch
against territories or space satellites of one or several great powers with a view to triggering an exchange of
nuclear strikes between them . Another high probability is the threat of a terrorist act with the use of a nuclear device in one or
several major capitals of the world.
EXT - beaches/travel and tourism key to competitiveness
travel and tourism key to competitiveness but edge is slipping
Houston ’08 (James R. Houston, the Director of the Army Corp of Engineers’ Engineer
Research and Development Center’s Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Summer 2008, “The
economic value of beaches – A 2008 update,” Shore & Beach 76.3, google it)
TRAVEL AND TOURISM:¶ KEY TO INTERNATIONAL¶ COMPETITIVENESS¶ The
U.S. is a major player in the international travel and tourism industry. International
tourists, who represent 10%-15% of tourists in the U.S., spent $108¶ billion in 2007 (U.S. Department of Com-merce 2007).
This is greater than the combined export value of U.S. agricultural¶ grains, aircraft,
computers, and telecommunications equipment (U.S. Census¶ Bureau 2007b). The U.S. runs massive¶
annual trade deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars, but travel and tourism is¶ one of the
few bright spots with a trade¶ surplus of $7.2 billion (U.S. Department¶ of Commerce 2007) in 2006. This surplus¶
is greater than the U.S. trade surplus of¶ $5.5 billion for all agricultural commodi-ties (U.S. Department of Commerce 2006).¶ The U.S. surplus in
travel and tourism¶ was $26.4 billion in 1996, but U.S. poli-cies that discourage international tourist¶ visits and lack of competitive activities¶ to
attract international tourists have¶ stalled visits. Americans take pride in U.S.¶ high-technology industries, but the U.S.¶ ran a trade deficit in hightechnology¶ goods of $102 billion in 2006 (Associ-ated Press 2007b). This deficit has¶ doubled since 2000 with the U.S. being¶ the largest
importer of high-technology¶ goods from China (Associated Press¶ 2007b).¶ International
tourists visiting the U.S.¶
produced estimated tax revenues in 2006¶ of $13.6 billion (U.S Department of¶ Commerce 2007 and U.S.
Chamber of¶ Commerce 2005). The U.S. Travel and¶ Tourism Administration (abolished by¶ Congress in 1996) published data show-ing the
recipients of $7.5 billion of tax¶ revenues from international tourists in¶ 1995 (U.S. Travel and Tourism Admin-istration 1994). The majority of
these tax¶ revenues (53% or about $4 billion) went¶ to the federal government with state gov-ernments receiving 33%. Local govern-ments that
provided most of the tourist-support infrastructure received only¶ 14.3% of the tax revenue. Assuming the¶ federal government received the
same¶ percentage of taxes from international¶ tourists in 2006 as 1995, the
federal gov-ernment received $7.2 billion
in taxes¶ from international tourists in 2006.
beaches key to the econ and competitiveness
Houston ’08 (James R. Houston, the Director of the Army Corp of Engineers’ Engineer
Research and Development Center’s Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Summer 2008, “The
economic value of beaches – A 2008 update,” Shore & Beach 76.3, google it)
CONCLUSION¶ Travel
and tourism is America’s lead-ing industry, employer, and earner of foreign exchange; and beaches are¶ America’s leading tourist destination.¶ Few Americans realize that
beaches are¶ a key driver of America’s economy and¶ support U.S. competitiveness in a world¶
economy. Perhaps Americans do not ap-preciate the importance of tourism to the¶ national economy because 98 percent of¶ the 1.4million tourism-related businesses in the United States are classified¶ as small businesses, and
this makes the¶ industry extremely fragmented (U.S.¶ Travel and Tourism Administration¶ 1995). Lacking
national advertising from¶ either this fragmented industry or a na-tional travel office, the
importance of¶ travel and tourism to the national¶ economy has not been communicated to¶
the American people. The conclusion one¶ draws today is the same as that noted by¶ Houston (1995a),“Without a paradigm¶ shift in
attitudes toward the economic¶ significance of travel and tourism and¶ necessary infrastructure investment to¶ maintain and restore beaches, the
U.S.¶ will relinquish a dominant worldwide¶ lead in its most important industry.”
2NC Impact – California Economy
offshore drilling ruins California beaches-key to their economy
Sierra Club ’09 (Sierra Club, America's largest and most influential grassroots environmental
organization, 8-09, “Don’t Rig Our Coastal Economy,”
www.sierraclub.org/habitat/downloads/2009-08-coasts.pdf)
California¶ California’s
coast stretches for 840 miles and comprises of everything from rugged cliffs¶ to sandy beaches.
Stretches of it are iconic the world over and its ocean economy is the¶ largest and most vibrant in the nation.¶
California’s beaches are the most visited tourist attraction in the state. Its wide variety of¶ shorelines,
rocky outcroppings, and pristine beaches beckon droves of people by the¶ millions. By some estimates, coastal tourism
contributes as much as $94 billion to¶ California's economy and supports over 900,000 jobs.¶
22¶ Of this, beach tourism is¶ expected to generate $14 billion in direct revenue.¶ 23¶ Around $5 billion goes directly to¶ the
state in the form of taxes which provide crucial services.
Californian collapse destroys heg and the economy
Gvosdev 3 (Nikolas, Editor – National Interest, The National Interest, Vol. 2, Issue 30, 8-13,
http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol2Issue32/Vol2Issue32Realist.html)
But the real issue is this: people "inside the Beltway" sometimes seem to forget that there is no "United States" apart from the fifty states (and
A fiscal and economic crisis in California has a direct impact on
the power of the United States, since some 13 percent of the total U.S. output is produced by California. California on its
own is the sixth largest economy in the world, worth some $1.309 trillion--yet this represents a decline of
approximately 2.3 percent from 2000, when California's economy outperformed that of France. California represents a
significant share of the country's technological base and of its human capital. The high-tech weaponry
which led to a swift initial military victory in Iraq is in part a product of the technology and defense sectors
of the California economy. A state budget crisis that significantly cuts back on everything from education (including
higher education, where so many innovative breakthroughs have taken place) to health care has ramifications for how the
United States projects its influence throughout the world. In previous issues of In the National Interest, other authors
have pointed out the dangerous implications of continued deficit spending by the federal government to support overseas operations, and this
problem can only increase if a continuing crisis in the principal engine of America's
economy continues. And, of course, California is the bellweather for the nation as a whole. Twentyassociated territories and commonwealths).
nine states have either passed or are considering tax hikes to close budget deficits. Several states--including Hawaii, Georgia and North Carolina-will call special fall sessions of their legislatures to deal with the fact that collected taxes have fallen short of budget projections. Yet the attitude
is that the recall in California is amusing political comedy, nothing more. There seems to be almost no recognition of the fact that whoever sits in
the governor's chair after October 7 --whether Grey Davis survives or is "terminated" --must work quickly to solve the problems that have led
California into its current quagmire. Few other countries in the world would be so blasé if political turmoil and economic collapse threatened the
welfare of a key component of its national power. The California crisis reminds us that there is no neat line dividing "domestic" and "foreign"
policy. Ensuring that California survives its current crisis is no less a priority than stabilizing Iraq or containing North Korea.
Global nuclear war
Arbatov 7 (Alexei, Member – Russian Academy of Sciences and Editor – Russia in Global
Affairs, “Is a New Cold War Imminent?”, Russia in Global Affairs, 5(3), July / September,
http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/20/1130.html)
However, the low probability of a new Cold War and the
collapse of American unipolarity (as a political doctrine, if not in
reality) cannot be a cause for complacency. Multipolarity, existing objectively at various levels and interdependently, holds many
difficulties and threats. For example, if the Russia-NATO confrontation persists, it can do much damage
to both parties and international security. Or, alternatively, if Kosovo secedes from Serbia, this may provoke similar
processes in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniestria, and involve Russia in armed conflicts with Georgia and Moldova, two countries that are
supported by NATO. Another flash point involves Ukraine. In the event of Kiev’s sudden admission into the North Atlantic Alliance (recently
sanctioned by the U.S. Congress), such a move may divide Ukraine and provoke mass disorders there, thus making it difficult for Russia and the
West to refrain from interfering. Meanwhile, U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in Central and Eastern Europe may cause Russia to
withdraw from the INF Treaty and resume programs for producing intermediate-range missiles. Washington may respond by deploying similar
missiles in Europe, which would dramatically increase the vulnerability of Russia’s strategic forces and their control and warning systems. This
could make the stage for nuclear confrontation even tenser. Other “centers of power” would immediately derive benefit from the growing RussiaWest standoff, using it in their own interests. China
would receive an opportunity to occupy even more advantageous
positions in its economic and political relations with Russia, the U.S. and Japan, and would consolidate its
influence in Central and South Asia and the Persian Gulf region. India, Pakistan, member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations and some exalted regimes in Latin America would hardly miss their chance, either. A multipolar world that is not
moving toward nuclear disarmament is a world of an expanding Nuclear Club. While Russia and the West continue to argue with each other,
states that are capable of developing nuclear weapons of their own will jump at the opportunity. The
probability of nuclear
weapons being used in a regional conflict will increase significantly . International Islamic
extremism and terrorism will increase dramatically; this threat represents the reverse side of
globalization. The situation in Afghanistan, Central Asia, the Middle East, and North and East
Africa will further destabilize. The wave of militant separatism, trans-border crime and terrorism
will also infiltrate Western Europe, Russia, the U.S., and other countries. The surviving
disarmament treaties (the N on- P roliferation T reaty, the C onventional Armed F orces in
E urope Treaty, and the C omprehensive Nuclear T est B an T reaty) will collapse. In a worstcase scenario, there is the chance that an adventuresome regime will initiate a missile launch
against territories or space satellites of one or several great powers with a view to triggering an exchange of
nuclear strikes between them . Another high probability is the threat of a terrorist act with the use of a nuclear device in one or
several major capitals of the world.
EXT - California economy impact
offshore drilling crushes california’s economy
Nava and Pope ’09 (Pedro Nava, a former California assemblyman representing Santa
Barbara County, and Carl Pope, the former executive director and chairman of the Sierra Club,
4-17-09, “Op-ed by Assemblymember Pedro Nava & Carl Pope on Protecting California's
Coast,” http://amchron.soundenterprises.net/articles/view/98766)
Any evaluation of offshore drilling must consider California's past, and our future.¶ Forty years
ago, more than 3.2 million gallons of crude oil defaced our shores near Santa Barbara. The
largest oil spill in American history at the time, it was surpassed twenty years later when the Exxon Valdez ran
aground in Prince William Sound. In the aftermath of these spills, scores of oil-soaked birds, seals and marine
mammals washed ashore. Thousands of gallons of oil still remain in Prince William Sound.¶ As a result of these disasters, we
learned that crude oil and ocean waters must never again mix.¶ In 1981 Congress placed a moratorium on drilling on the outer continental shelf
and in 1990, following the Exxon Valdez, President Bush strengthened the moratorium with an executive order. However, last year, the oil
industry and its friends in Congress took advantage of high gas prices to call for more drilling. In the dying days of his Administration, George
W. Bush proposed millions of acres for new drilling off the Pacific Coast. ¶ In an effort to bring the public back into decision-making, the Obama
administration is holding hearings around the country to solicit feedback on the Bush administration's drilling plan. The decisions we make today
will determine the future of our shoreline and coastal marine habitats for years to come. ¶ California´s green energy policies have led the nation
and the world. We shouldn't take a step back by expanding offshore oil drilling and reliance on fossil fuels. Our energy future lies in solar, wind,
renewable energy, efficiency, and conservation. Feeding our oil addiction will only undermine efforts to stimulate the growth of green jobs, to
reduce global warming emissions, and expand the use of renewable energy. ¶ Any
energy plans the administration
makes must consider the future of California´s coast and economy. California's ocean
waters are home to four important national marine sanctuaries -- areas of special ecological, scientific and
aesthetic importance that are particularly sensitive to the impacts of oil development. Protecting our spectacular coastline
is critical to a number of our state's coastal and ocean-dependent industries.¶ In 2006, the
coastal tourism industry contributed $93.8 billion and 928,700 jobs in California.
Commercial fishing generated almost $130 million, and recreational fishing brought over
$2 billion and 19,903 jobs. An oil spill could have economic repercussions that far outweigh
any imagined economic benefits of coastal oil drilling.
2NC Impact - Marine BioD
Spills crush marine biodiversity
David Pettit and David Newman 2012 (David Pettit, a 1975 graduate of UCLA Law
School, is a Senior Attorney for¶ the Natural Resources Defense Council. He is an environmental
law litigator¶ who has been involved in the aftermath of the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon¶ oil spill.
David would like to thank Rebecca Wolitz, Yale University Law¶ School, J.D. expected 2012, for
her contributions to this piece.¶ f David Newman is an Oceans Program Attorney for the Natural
Resources¶ Defense Council, and has been involved in BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill¶ Litigation,
“Federal Public Law and the Future of¶ Oil and Gas Drilling on the Outer¶ Continental Shelf”
HeinOnline ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITYLAWREVIEW [Vol. 17:184)
BOEMRE also noted that "[a] catastrophic spill
has the¶ potential to cause significant impacts to marine
and coastal¶ biological habitats and resources in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as¶ direct impacts to individual organisms."¶ 86 ¶ It
described how the¶ Deepwater Horizon spill had both identified a number of risks ¶ from offshore drilling and called into question some of
BOEMRE's¶ prior assumptions about the potential risks:¶ [T1he Deepwater
Horizon spill has demonstrated that a¶ highvolume, extended-duration spill resulting from a¶ blowout has the potential to result in impacts that could¶
affect the long-term population status of biological¶ resources over extended areas ....¶ ... Marine
mammals have been observed swimming in oil¶ after spills. Therefore, it cannot be assumed
they would¶ avoid the impacted area. The oil could harm marine¶ mammals through several ways, including, but not¶
limited to, the breathing of fumes from the oil (and¶ possibly dispersants), persistence on their skin, and the¶ consumption of oiled food
sources....¶ Sea Turtles: The majority of sea turtles impacted by the¶ Deepwater Horizon event have been Kemp's ridleys,¶ listed as endangered
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Shoreline
oiling and efforts may affect future¶ population levels
and reproduction....¶ Coastal Habitats: During the spill, over 500 miles of¶ shoreline were impacted, varying
from light to moderate¶ to heaving oiling. The majority of the Gulf coast is sensitive shoreline types (i.e., sheltered tidal flats; ¶ vegetated low
banks; salt/brackish-water marshes;¶ freshwater marshes/swamps; scrub-shrub wetlands) that¶
tend to accumulate oil and are
difficult to clean, causing¶ oil to persist in coastal and estuarine areas. Loss of¶ vegetation
could lead to erosion and permanent land loss.¶ Coastal and Marine Birds: The Gulf coastal habitats are¶ essential to
the annual cycles of many species of breeding,¶ wintering and migrating waterfowl, wading birds,¶ shorebirds, and songbirds. The spill and
response¶ activities could interfere with migration. The worst¶ impacts to oiled birds, or those which have ingested
oil¶ with their prey, would be if the oil spill occurs during the¶ nesting season. An oil spill could result in the loss of¶
entire colonies of breeding birds on barrier islands¶ surrounded by oil, along with the loss of all eggs and¶
nestlings.¶ Fisheries: A catastrophic spill has the potential to cause¶ the loss of a year class (fish in a stock
born in the same¶ year), affecting future stock populations.... ... With the oiling over 500 miles of shoreline, it is¶
foreseeable that an entire critical habitat for a species¶ with a relatively small critical
habitat could have been¶ completely oiled. For example, the endangered Alabama¶ beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus
ammobates) only¶ has 1,211 acres of frontal dunes covering just ten miles of¶ shoreline designated as critical habitat.¶ 87
2NC Link – Spills Inevitable
oil spills inevitable with the plan-ruins beach economies
Greenpeace, 8-4-08, “Offshore Drilling – It’s NOT the Answer to High Gas Prices at the
Pump,” http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/news/offshore-drilling-it-s-not-t/
Oil Spills-Deadly Consequences¶ In 1981, responding to public sentiment, Congress adopted the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) Moratorium, which prevents the leasing of coastal waters off the Atlantic and pacific coasts and Alaska's Bristol Bay for oil and gas
drilling.¶ If the moratorium is lifted, our oceans and the species that call them home will suffer. An
increase in offshore drilling
will put more of this country's beaches, fish, and marine mammals at risk, as both the
exploration and the drilling for oil increase the threat to our valuable coastlines. Tourism
along our beaches and coastal communities is vital to our economy.¶ Seismic testing to locate oil creates
decibel levels of 260 - twice as loud as an ambulance. Exposure to these levels of noise can cause disorientation, beaching, and brain
hemorrhaging in whales and dolphins. Drilling
for oil results in routine releases of toxic drilling muds,
excavation materials, production waters, and contaminants such as mercury lead,
cadmium and radioactive substances such as radium. Offshore oil drilling also comes with tanker, boat and barge
traffic and other industrial activity and noise that disturb wildlife. And all offshore oil drilling requires an onshore
network of pipelines, roads, refineries, docks and other infrastructure that release
pollutants into the air and water, as well as destroy coastal habitat.¶ Plus, offshore drilling
creates an increased risk of oil spills close to our beaches and coastlines. One of the biggest myths told
by political candidates (the oil industry and their allies in Congress) is that hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused no significant oil spills in the Gulf
of Mexico. Nothing could be further from the truth. Katrina
and Rita trashed drilling platforms, ruptured
pipelines and yanked 2-million-gallon storage tanks off their foundations. More than 9
million gallons of oil spilled as a result of those two storms. Compare that amount with the 11 million gallons of
oil spilled by the infamous Exxon Valdez when it ran aground in Prince William Sound Alaska in 1989. The Minerals Management Service
(MMS), the federal agency that regulates offshore drilling, reported that hurricanes Katrina and Rita
destroyed 113 oil platforms and damaged 457 pipelines.¶ Supercharged storms like Katrina and Rita
will continue to pummel coastal areas and oil infrastructure as global warming continues,
meaning more oil spills are inevitable.
spills inevitable-hurricanes that tech can’t solve
Cappiello ’05 (Dina Cappiello, the national environmental reporter for The Associated Press
in Washington, where her beat encompasses the Environmental Protection Agency, offshore oil
and gas drilling, nuclear energy, coal and global warming policy and won first-place for
investigative reporting from the Society of Environmental Journalists, 11-13-05, “Spills from
hurricanes stain coast With gallery,” http://www.chron.com/news/hurricanes/article/Spills-fromhurricanes-stain-coast-With-gallery-1915858.php)
Hurricane Katrina's floodwaters unleashed 1 million gallons of oil from one of the massive storage tanks
at Murphy Oil's nearby refinery. The spill spread over 1 square mile and stained 1,700 homes, making it one of the largest environmental spills to
occur in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.¶ But it was far from the only one.¶ A Houston Chronicle review
of data from the
that the two storms caused at least 595 spills, incidents that released
untold amounts of oil, natural gas and other chemicals into the air, onto land and into the water.¶ The
quantity and cumulative magnitude of the 595 spills, which were spread across four states and struck offshore and
inland, rank these two hurricanes among the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history.
Some have even compared the total amount of oil released — estimated at 9 million gallons — to the tragedy
National Response Center shows
of Exxon Valdez.¶ Now, Estrade and many others who live in this fence-line neighborhood are wondering: Even if they do clean up, will
the community ever again be environmentally safe? In Chalmette, the spill left dark-brown stains on every car, front door and mailbox. Its drips
are motionless on storm gutters. It was even absorbed into Estrade's wife's ceramic pots. ¶ "The oil penetrated everything. It was a compound
tragedy," said Estrade, who has lived here since 1975.¶ The potential exposure to various chemicals as residents return and workers clean up has
prompted federal authorities to develop health-based standards specifically for the hurricanes' aftermath, something they haven't done since the
World Trade Center collapsed, sending asbestos and other contaminants into the air in Lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001.¶ "This is about the
tenth disaster I have responded to, and this is the worst I have ever seen," said Wally Cooper, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's onscene coordinator, in charge of overseeing the Murphy Oil spill cleanup. "This is worse than the worst-case scenario."¶ Representatives of the
oil industry say there was no way they could have foreseen or prepared for the environmental
mess.¶ "We don't like to spill oil. Oil that spills is of no value," said Larry Wall, a spokesman for the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas
Association.¶ "You can build your structures to withstand strong winds, rain and storm surges, but nature can always topple
you," Wall said.
spills are inevitable with offshore drilling
Sierra Club ’09 (Sierra Club, America's largest and most influential grassroots environmental
organization, 8-09, “Don’t Rig Our Coastal Economy,”
www.sierraclub.org/habitat/downloads/2009-08-coasts.pdf)
Pollution and oil spills¶ Big
Oil's track record with offshore drilling is ugly. Offshore operators have
had 40 large¶ scale spills (greater than 42,000 gallons) since 1964. Thirteen of those have been in the¶
past 10 years alone. And those are just the biggest spills¶ 3¶ ; smaller spills are still an¶ everyday occurrence,
and continue to impact our coastlines. ¶ Offshore operations are especially vulnerable
during hurricanes, a very real threat where¶ the majority of oil drilling occurs. Of the 13
major spills in the past 10 years, 7 have¶ been hurricane-related. In August, 2005, during Hurricane
Katrina, more than 9 million¶ gallons of oil spilled from pipelines, storage tanks and
industrial plants.¶ 4¶ Oil is extremely toxic to marine life such as birds, fish, seals, and whales. Once they¶ happen, oil spills
cannot be reversed and current cleanup methods are incapable of¶ removing more than a
small fraction of the oil spilled in ocean waters. Additionally,¶ there is strong evidence that oil actually becomes more
toxic over time as it slowly¶ degrades in the environment. Often, the last compounds to degrade are those that are¶ known human carcinogens.¶ 5¶
According to the National Academy of Sciences, a single well produces between 1500 ¶ and 2000 tons of waste material. Debris includes drill
cuttings, which is rock ground into¶ pieces by bit, and drilling mud brought up during the drilling process. This mud contains¶ toxic metals such
as lead, cadmium, and mercury. Other pollutants, such as benzene, ¶ arsenic, zinc and other known carcinogens and radioactive materials are
routinely¶ released in “produced water,” which emerges when¶ water is brought up from a well along with the oil or¶ gas.¶ 6
spills inevitable-hurricanes disrupt onshore infrastructure
Cappiello ’05 (Dina Cappiello, the national environmental reporter for The Associated Press
in Washington, where her beat encompasses the Environmental Protection Agency, offshore oil
and gas drilling, nuclear energy, coal and global warming policy and won first-place for
investigative reporting from the Society of Environmental Journalists, 11-13-05, “Spills from
hurricanes stain coast With gallery,” http://www.chron.com/news/hurricanes/article/Spills-fromhurricanes-stain-coast-With-gallery-1915858.php)
Yet previous
storms and past warnings by hurricane experts indicate that the storage tanks
were vulnerable.¶ In 1961, Hurricane Carla moved a tank in Hackberry, La., more than six miles. And a five-year study released by
Louisiana State University's Center for the Study of the Public Health Impacts of Hurricanes in 2003 concluded that
storage tanks, many of which rely on the weight of their contents and gravity to hold them down, could be major sources
of spills.¶ "A high proportion of them are not properly tied down," Ivor van Heerden, the center's director,
said in a November 2003 report in the New Orleans Times-Picayune. "Imagine a storage tank full of diesel lifted by
floodwaters, shearing its hoses, and its pipes working loose, and leaking."¶ Environmentalists say faulty
equipment, not the hurricanes, was to blame for many of the spills. For the activist community, the storms' environmental impact has refocused
efforts from day-to-day pollution and on to bigger issues such as whether energy infrastructure should be located along a hurricane-prone coast,
said Denny Larson, coordinator for the Refinery Reform Campaign.¶ "People have said for years that they shouldn't have facilities in low-lying
coastal areas where contamination risks are great," Larson said. "It's
... the poorest possible choice."
spills caused by hurricanes ensure destruction of coastal habitats
Cappiello ’05 (Dina Cappiello, the national environmental reporter for The Associated Press
in Washington, where her beat encompasses the Environmental Protection Agency, offshore oil
and gas drilling, nuclear energy, coal and global warming policy and won first-place for
investigative reporting from the Society of Environmental Journalists, 11-13-05, “Spills from
hurricanes stain coast With gallery,” http://www.chron.com/news/hurricanes/article/Spills-fromhurricanes-stain-coast-With-gallery-1915858.php)
For some state scientists, the
loss of the coast was the biggest environmental impact of all.¶ "Valdez
didn't reach the coastline. Katrina destroyed the coastline. That habitat is gone," said Bradshaw,
of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.¶ The U.S. Coast Guard says all free oil has been collected in Louisiana. In Chalmette,
workers hired by Murphy Oil recently sopped up the last of the 25,000 barrels that spilled
there; however, no houses have been cleansed of the oil.
Link – T/F Quick
The link is quick – triggered by exploratory drilling
David Pettit and David Newman 2012 (David Pettit, a 1975 graduate of UCLA Law
School, is a Senior Attorney for¶ the Natural Resources Defense Council. He is an environmental
law litigator¶ who has been involved in the aftermath of the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon¶ oil spill.
David would like to thank Rebecca Wolitz, Yale University Law¶ School, J.D. expected 2012, for
her contributions to this piece.¶ f David Newman is an Oceans Program Attorney for the Natural
Resources¶ Defense Council, and has been involved in BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill¶ Litigation,
“Federal Public Law and the Future of¶ Oil and Gas Drilling on the Outer¶ Continental Shelf”
HeinOnline ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITYLAWREVIEW [Vol. 17:184)
In addition, BOEMRE acknowledged that exploratory
drilling,¶ regardless of the depth, poses a greater risk of a
catastrophic oil¶ spill than does development drilling since it involves "drill[ing]¶ into
formations for which there is limited knowledge of the¶ wellbore parameters."
AT: Regulations Solve Spills
regulation doesn’t solve risk of spills
Weiss ’11 (Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for
American Progress, 1-11-11, “Big Oil Sings the Same Old Song,”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2011/01/11/8924/big-oil-sings-the-sameold-song/)
The EIA data indicate that there is no need to launch panic drilling while ignoring the commission’s recommendations to improve safety
procedures after the BP oil disaster. It is critical to note that Commission Co-Chair William K. Reilly believes that:¶ Given
the
documented failings of both Transocean and Halliburton, both of which serve the off shore
industry in virtually every ocean, I reluctantly conclude we have a system-wide problem.¶ The
commission’s investigation noted that actions by BP, Halliburton, and Transocean that increased the risk of the disaster saved these companies
money, and reforms are essential to minimize the likelihood of future disasters. ¶ Whether purposeful or not, many of the decisions that BP,
Halliburton, and Transocean made that increased the risk of the Macondo blowout clearly saved those companies significant time (and money).¶
The blowout was not the product of a series of aberrational decisions made by rogue industry or
government officials that could not have been anticipated or expected to occur again. Rather, the root causes are systemic and,
absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur.¶ Domestic production will increase
relative to demand, and U.S. imports from OPEC will decline. There also will be two rounds of improvements in fuel economy standards for
model years 2012–2016 and 2017–2022. It makes little sense to begin expanded deepwater drilling that relies only on oil industry changes rather
than waiting to implement the commission’s recommendations. Yet Gerard believes that the oil industry’s improvements determined before the
cause of the BP disaster was known are adequate.¶ We immediately brought together industry experts from around the world and created task
forces to identify ways we could enhance the focus on safety, even before we knew the cause of this disaster. ¶ But we also cannot
keep
the industry on indefinite ‘hold’ while the regulatory process is improved.¶ The commission
found that the BP oil disaster was due to “systemic” problems. Associated Press reports that the
commission will find that API is wrong—that voluntary reforms are inadequate to protect
the coastal economy and environment.¶ Despite reforms put in place since the massive BP
oil spill, a presidential investigating panel has concluded that the government and the oil industry still haven’t
done enough to avert another catastrophic accident offshore.¶ Instead of API’s rush to drill, the commission’s
recommendations—to be released today—should be fully implemented and thoroughly enforced on existing rigs before new expansion begins.
Politico reports that these recommendations could include lifting the oil spill liability limit, providing more resources for enforcement of safety
measures, establishing an independent entity to set safety standards, and other new protections. Without
such rules, we risk
another multibillion-dollar Gulf Coast disaster that would further harm the local economy,
push some coastal residents into poverty, and cause long-lasting economic and
environmental damage.
2NC Internals – Beaches Key to the Economy
beaches key to travel and tourism and the economy
Houston ’08 (James R. Houston, the Director of the Army Corp of Engineers’ Engineer
Research and Development Center’s Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Summer 2008, “The
economic value of beaches – A 2008 update,” Shore & Beach 76.3)
BEACHES: KEY TO U.S.¶ TRAVEL AND TOURISM¶ Beaches are the key element of
U.S.¶ travel and tourism, since they are the lead-ing tourist destination (USA Today1993;¶ Carlson
Wagonlit Travel Agent Poll 1998;¶ Washingtonpost.com:Poll 2001; Chivas¶ Poll 2001, TripAdvisor 2007, BusinessWire¶ 2007). Coastal
states receive about 85%¶ of tourist-related revenues in the U.S.¶ largely because beaches
are tremendously popular (World Almanac 2007).¶ Although there are many interior attrac-tions from Yellowstone to the Grand
Can-yon and from Las Vegas to Branson, Mis-souri; the popularity of beaches dominates¶ tourism. For example, a single beach
location (Miami Beach) reported more tourist¶ visits (21 million) than were made to any¶ National
Park Service property (Wiegel¶ 1992; National Park Service 2007a). Miami¶ Beach has more than twice as many tour-ist visits as
the combined number of tour-ist visits to Yellowstone (2.9 million), the¶ Grand Canyon (4.3 million), and Yosemite¶ (3.2 million) (National Park
Service 2007a).¶ California
beaches alone have more tourist visits (567 million) than combined tourist
visits (272 million) to all 388 National¶ Park Service properties - including national seashores
and monuments and¶ buildings such as the Lincoln Memorial,¶ Washington Monument, and
White¶ House (King 1999; National Park Service¶ 2007a). It is estimated that each year ap-proximately 180 million Americans make 2¶
billion visits to ocean, gulf, and inland¶ beaches (Clean Beaches Council 2007).¶ This is almost twice as many visits as the¶ combined 1.06 billion
visits made to prop-erties of the National Park Service (272¶ million), Bureau of Land Management (55¶ million), and all state parks and
recreation¶ areas (735 million) (National Association¶ of State Park Directors 2007, Bureau of¶ Land Management 2007).Moreover, many¶ of
these visits to state parks and recre-ation areas were visits to beaches. For¶ example, state beaches in California ac-count for only 2.7% of
California state park¶ holdings, but account for 72% of visits¶ (King 1999). The
2 billion beach visits also¶ dwarf the 138
million visitors to all theme¶ parks in the U.S. including properties of¶ Disney, Six Flags,
Universal, SeaWorld,¶ Busch Gardens, Paramount, Knotts Berry¶ Farms, Hershey Park,
Dollywood, and¶ other theme Parks (Theme Park Insider¶ 2005).¶ Beaches make a large contribution¶
to America’s economy. Beach tourism¶ in Florida made a $52 billion contribution to the
economy in 2007 dollars (Murley et. al2003, U.S. Department of¶ Labor 2007). Similarly, King (1999) shows¶ that California
beach tourism makes a¶ total direct and indirect contribution of¶ $73 billion to the national economy.
Mul-tiplying the ratio of visitors to national¶ beaches (2 billion) and visitors to Cali-fornia beaches (567 million) by the con-tribution of
California beach visitors to¶ the national economy ($73 billion) in 1999¶ and adjusting for inflation yields an esti-mate that U.S.
beaches
currently contribute $322 billion annually to the economy¶ in 2007 dollars (Clean Beaches Council¶
2007, King 1999, and U.S. Department of¶ Labor 2007). This is more than twenty¶ five times the $12 billion contribution of¶ the National Park
Service system to the¶ national economy (National Park Service¶ 2006). As was noted to be the case for¶ foreign tourists, most
taxes
paid by beach¶ tourists also flow primarily to the federal¶ government. For example, a study of tour-ism
at Huntington Beach, California,¶ showed that the federal government is¶ the main beneficiary of beach tourism¶ with tourism at
Huntington Beach generating $135 million in federal revenues,¶ $25 million in state sales
tax revenues,¶ and $4.8 million in local revenue sales tax¶ and parking fees (King 1999).
travel and tourism key to the econ
-largest industry
-largest employer
-jobs can’t be outsourced unlike high-tech jobs
-other service sector jobs are being offshored at a very high rate
-provides a lot of government revenue
Houston ’08 (James R. Houston, the Director of the Army Corp of Engineers’ Engineer
Research and Development Center’s Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Summer 2008, “The
economic value of beaches – A 2008 update,” Shore & Beach 76.3, google it)
TRAVEL AND TOURISM¶ IS LARGEST INDUSTRY¶ AND EMPLOYER¶ Travel and tourism is
the world’s larg-est industry with the broad measure of¶ economic activity, Travel and Tourism¶ Economy (TTE), contributing
$5.4 tril-lion in 2007 to the world’s Gross Domes-tic Product (GDP) (World Travel and¶ Tourism Council 2007a) and exceeding¶ the GDP of all
countries other than the¶ United States (International Monetary¶ Fund 2007).Similarly, TTE contributes¶ $1.4
trillion to
America’s GDP (World¶ Travel and Tourism Council 2007a).This¶ is 10.2% of U.S. output (World Travel¶ and Tourism
Council 2007b) and makes¶ TTE the largest contributor to GDP just¶ ahead of durable goods manufacturing¶ and
retail trade that contribute 8.7% and¶ 7.4% respectively to GDP (U.S. Census¶ Bureau 2007a). TTE also produces $104.9¶ billion
in annual tax revenue for all levels¶ of government in the United States¶ (Travel Industry Association 2007).¶
Travel and tourism is both the world’s¶ and America’s largest employer with¶ TTE employing 231
million people¶ throughout the world and 15 million¶ people, or more than one out of every¶ 9.7 people, in the
United States (World¶ Travel and Tourism Council 2007b). In¶ contrast, all U.S. manufacturing industries from IBM to
General Motors to Intel¶ employ only 14.2 million people, having steadily lost 3.1 million jobs since¶
2000 (U.S. Department of Labor 2006).¶ Although many states have policies to¶ attract manufacturing industries, espe-cially high-technology
industries, few¶ have policies to attract travel and tour-ism businesses. However, there are only¶ about one-third as many
high-technology¶ jobs as travel and tourism jobs in the U.S.¶ and offshoring is increasingly
taking¶ place in high-technology industries (As-sociated Press 2007b). For example, the¶ pharmaceutical industry is
increasingly¶ shifting its research and development to¶ China and India (PRNewswire 2005). Dan¶ Scheinman, senior vice-president for corporate development at Cisco System Inc,¶ said, “”We came to India for the costs,¶ we stayed for the quality, and we’re now¶ investing for the
innovation”(Business¶ Week 2005). Microsoft’s
R&D lab in¶ Beijing is cited as one of the world’s most¶
productive sources of innovation in computer graphics and language simulation¶ (Business Week
2005).¶ Not only are manufacturing jobs in a¶ long-term decline, but many service-sector jobs
face “offshoring.” Princeton¶ economist Alan Blinder, who was vice¶ chairman of the Federal Reserve during¶ the Clinton
administration, says the number of jobs at risk of being shipped out¶ of the country could reach 40
million¶ over the next 10-20 years (Associated¶ Press 2007a). This means that one out of¶ every three servicesector jobs could be¶ at risk.¶ Travel and tourism is a rare industry¶ where offshoring is
difficult. There can¶ be intense competition among countries¶ for tourism, but if a tourist wants the tour-ist experience at Fisherman’s Wharf,
San¶ Francisco, the tourist has to go to San¶ Francisco. Travel and tourism may be¶ ignored in the U.S. because of percep-tions that this industry
has low-wage jobs.¶ However, U.S.
per-capita wages for¶ travel and tourism jobs average 13%¶ higher
than average U.S. per-capita¶ wages (Holecek 1995). Switzerland pro-vides a good example of high wages in¶ tourism, since
it depends on tourism more¶ than any developed country yet has one¶ of the world’s highest per-capita in-comes.
oceans key to the economy-oil spills destroy it
Danson ’09 (TED DANSON, a longtime ocean activist and a member of the Board of
Directors of Oceana, 2-11-09, “OFFSHORE DRILLING:¶ ENVIRONMENTAL AND¶
COMMERCIAL PERSPECTIVES¶ OVERSIGHT HEARING¶ before the¶ COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES¶ U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg47302/html/CHRG-111hhrg47302.htm)
Oil and water don't mix. Our oceans
give essential protein to ¶ nearly half the world's population. In
the U.S., recreational and ¶ commercial fisheries combined supply over 2 million jobs. On top of ¶ that, coastal
tourism provides 28.3 million jobs and annually generates ¶ $54 billion in goods and
services. Ecosystems are disrupted top to ¶ bottom by the short and long term effects of oil. More oil spills mean ¶ less
abundant oceans. More oil spills mean fewer wonderful, pristine ¶ beaches. More oil spills mean
fewer jobs.¶ While not intentional, spills happen. These spills range from ¶ small, steady
leaks to large accidents and they occur at every stage in ¶ oil production from the oil
platform to the oil tanker to the pipeline ¶ and storage tanks. Approximately 120 millions
gallons of oil are ¶ discharged into the world's oceans every year from oil platforms, ¶
marine transportation, vessel discharges and accidents. The impacts to ¶ fish and wildlife are numerous and well
documented, often resulting in ¶ death.
offshore drilling kills the econ-tourism and fishing industries devastated and
key
Mund et al. ’10 (Nat Mund, currently the Legislative Director at the Southern Environmental
Law Center. Prior to joining the SELC, Nat was Deputy Legislative Director for the League of
Conservation Voters. Nat received a BA from Michigan State University, Deborah Murray, a
senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, and Marirose Pratt, an associate
attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, 8-10-10, “Drilling for Oil in the Atlantic
and Eastern Gulf: A Dead End Idea,”
http://www.southernenvironment.org/cases/drilling_in_the_atlantic_huge_risk_little_reward/ocs
_bacground_factsheet_june2010/)
Then the
Deepwater Horizon oil rig-an example of the oil and gas industry's 21st-century
technology-exploded in the Gulf. The environmental catastrophe has brought into stark focus
the inherent dangers of offshore drilling to coastal communities and natural resources.¶ The small
amounts of oil and gas estimated in the Mid- and South Atlantic and eastern Gulf are not worth
the tremendous risk to the region's coastal communities, rich fisheries, clean beaches and
other natural resources. There are cleaner, safer ways to power America.¶ Too Little, Too Late¶ The MMS estimates the Mid- and
South Atlantic combined hold only three months supply of oil (1.91 billion barrels) and ten months supply of gas (18.99 trillion cubic feet) at
current rates of consumption nationwide.*¶ Of that, the proposed Virginia lease sale holds just six days supply of oil (130 million barrels) and 18
days supply of gas (1,140 billion cubic feet). ¶ If production started in 2011- much sooner than is feasible under current circumstances-it would
have no impact on domestic oil and gas prices until at least 2030, and even then any such impact would be "insignificant," according to the
federal Energy Information Administration.1¶ Environmental Threats¶ The long-term, widespread environmental and economic destruction from
major oil spills like the Deepwater disaster is indisputable. But blowouts and other catastrophes are
just one way that
drilling off the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf could harm marine life and coastal communities. ¶ According to
the National Academy of Sciences, a single well produces between 1,500 and 2,000 tons of waste
material, including ground rock and drilling "muds"-a dense liquid used to operate rigs which contains toxic pollutants, such as mercury,
lead, chromium, barium, arsenic and cadmium. Dumped on the ocean floor, the debris damages marine habitat; the toxic muds can
be carried by currents over a mile from the rig, contaminating small bottom-dwelling
organisms that form the foundation of the marine food chain. ¶ A 2004 inventory shows that drilling rigs
release tons of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds each year. These compounds are the basic
ingredients of smog, haze, and other air pollution.2 ¶ Threats on Land¶ Crude
oil and raw natural gas both must be refined to
convert them to fuel for our homes, cars and factories. Refineries pipelines and distribution facilities
pollute our air and water daily.¶ Such infrastructure would, in all likelihood, have to be built on the coast in Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina and/or Georgia to process oil and gas collected off the Southern coast. ¶ An average U.S. refinery-about
the size of several hundred football fields-releases
more than 11,000 gallons of oil or fumes into the water
and air daily. These releases include hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and soot, which cause major
health and environmental problems.3¶ Wildlife Impacts¶ The Mid- and South Atlantic coast is a
globally significant area for migration of birds, sea turtles, and marine mammals. The
region also contains some of the most productive areas for commercial fisheries in the
country-the Chesapeake Bay, Albemarle-Pamlico Sound, and the unique "Charleston bump" on the ocean floor off South Carolina. Onshore
and offshore oil and gas development could have devastating impacts on mammals, fish and other
wildlife.¶ The North Atlantic right whale, one of the most critically endangered species in the world, migrates along the Atlantic coast twice a
year; its only breeding grounds lie off Georgia and northern Florida. Other marine mammals of special concern include the humpback whale,
beaked whale, and the bottlenose dolphin.¶ The Mid- and South Atlantic shore provides breeding grounds and stopover points for a wide variety
of federal- and state-listed sea turtles and shorebirds, which attract thousands of tourists throughout the year. ¶ Noise,
light, and
underwater vibrations generated by seismic surveys, vessel traffic, pile driving, drilling,
and construction would negatively impact marine species, many of which rely on sound to
feed and navigate. Vessel strikes are another serious threat for whales, dolphins, and manatees.¶ Economic Impact¶ Seismic
testing, oil spills, contamination from toxic drilling muds, impacts of onshore
infrastructure, and other environmental damage from oil and gas development would impact
both the commercial fishing and the tourism upon which the coastal communities of the Mid- and South Atlantic
and eastern Gulf rely.¶ The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has classified the coast from New York to North
Carolina as "essential fish habitat" for several species, including summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, bluefish,
Atlantic surfclam, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic butterfish, golden tilefish, spiny dogfish, and tilefish. ¶ In 2008, there was $262.8
million worth of commercial fish landings in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia, according to NOAA,4 which could suffer losses due to impacts of oil and gas development:¶
Virginia: $149.5 million¶ North Carolina: $86.8 million¶ South Carolina: $17.5 million¶ Georgia: $9.0 million ¶ The blue crab population, a
signature species for Virginia, is fast dwindling. Toxic pollution from oil and gas operations on the Outer Continental Shelf, where blue crab
larvae develop, could devastate the species. ¶ According to the American Sportfishing Association5, saltwater
sport fishing in
2006 accounted for thousands of jobs and millions of dollars to coastal economies: ¶ Virginia:
5,541 jobs and $945 million ¶ North Carolina: 9,735 jobs and $1.74 billion ¶ South Carolina: 11,896 jobs and $2.07 billion¶ Georgia: 2,010 jobs
and $428 million ¶ Coastal
communities which rely largely on tourism could suffer as a result of
potential development of refineries, pipelines, roads or other onshore infrastructure, as well as declining
fish and marine species, not to mention the dire economic impacts of a catastrophic spill .¶
Tourism provides 30,000 jobs on North Carolina's Outer Banks.6 In South Carolina's Myrtle
Beach area, it provides 39,100 jobs.7¶ In 2007, the 18 Virginia cities and counties of the Chesapeake Bay and coast brought in
approxi-mately $4.25 billion in tourism revenue, according to the Virginia Tourism Corporation. ¶ The potential loss of certain
military operations, a driving force of Virginia's coastal economy, due to conflicts with
drilling could cost the state some $1.9 billion yearly and 15,000 jobs-more if additional
forces are moved.8
offshore drilling devastates fishing-key to the economy
Sierra Club ’09 (Sierra Club, America's largest and most influential grassroots environmental
organization, 8-09, “Don’t Rig Our Coastal Economy,”
www.sierraclub.org/habitat/downloads/2009-08-coasts.pdf)
Aside from tourism, coastal
economies are often heavily reliant upon commercial and¶ recreational fishing. This industry
has provided a way of life in this country for¶ centuries. But offshore drilling threatens to destroy it. Take Florida, for
example.¶ Florida’s expansive coastline provides diverse and rewarding saltwater fishing for ¶ recreational anglers. The popularity of recreational
fishing has grown steadily over the¶ past several decades. Money
spent by anglers has boosted the local, state and
national¶ economies. Visiting anglers sustain old jobs and create new ones. They support¶
manufacturers, suppliers, and service industries. The total economic output of the¶ recreational saltwater fishing
industry is substantial and supports an extensive number of¶ full and part-time jobs. Aside from tourism, coastal economies are often heavily
reliant¶ upon the fishing industry.¶ U.S.
commercial and saltwater fishing generates approximately $185
billion in sales¶ annually and supports over two million jobs. The commercial fishing is the bulk of this,¶
generating $103 billion in sales, $44 billion in income, and supporting 1.5 million jobs.¶ Recreational fishing, is no small contributor, however,
generating $82 billion in sales,¶ $24 billion in income, and supporting 534,000 jobs.¶ 13¶ Pollution
and spills from oil and gas
rigs can harm fish stocks, but so can other activities¶ associated with off shore drilling.
Following seismic activity, anglers and commercial¶ fisherman saw a dramatic drop in the
number of fish eggs, adult fish, and shellfish larvae¶ in the area. Trawl catch declined from
50 to 70 percent, and long line catch declined by¶ 44 percent. This was especially alarming because of the
endangered status of some¶ populations, and because of the fish’s inability to detect and avoid damaging low-frequency noise caused by seismic
shooting.
coastal tourism is key to the economy-offshore drilling destroys it
Sierra Club ’09 (Sierra Club, America's largest and most influential grassroots environmental
organization, 8-09, “Don’t Rig Our Coastal Economy,”
www.sierraclub.org/habitat/downloads/2009-08-coasts.pdf)
THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF OUR BEACHES¶ America’s
beaches are a powerful workhorse for our¶
national economy. Although coastal areas make up less¶ than one-fifth of the land area of the contiguous 48 states,¶ they
account for more than half of the nation’s population¶ and housing supply. By 2008 it was estimated
that¶ approximately half of the U.S. population, 160 million,¶ would live in 673 coastal counties, including the Great¶ Lakes.¶ 11¶ Annual
tourist visits to all of America’s¶ federal and state parks, recreational¶ areas, and public
lands combined still do¶ not match visits to our beaches. This¶ means that in the minds of vacationers,¶
beaches far outweigh even our most¶ iconic destinations such as Yellowstone¶ National Park, Disneyland, or Las¶
Vegas. Coastal states receive about 85¶ percent of the nation’s total tourism¶ revenue--largely
because of the¶ popularity of beaches.¶ 12¶ They are far and¶ away the biggest draw for both domestic¶ and foreign tourists.
offshore drilling devastates critical ocean economies
Danson ’09 (TED DANSON, a longtime ocean activist and a member of the Board of
Directors of Oceana, 2-11-09, “OFFSHORE DRILLING:¶ ENVIRONMENTAL AND¶
COMMERCIAL PERSPECTIVES¶ OVERSIGHT HEARING¶ before the¶ COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES¶ U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg47302/html/CHRG-111hhrg47302.htm)
Oil and water don't mix. Our oceans
give essential protein ¶ to nearly half the world's population. In the
U.S., ¶ recreational and commercial fisheries combined supply over 2 ¶ million jobs. On top of that, coastal
tourism provides 28.3 ¶ million jobs, and annually generates $54 billion in goods and ¶
services.¶ Ecosystems are disrupted, top to bottom, by the short- and ¶ long-term effects of oil. More oil spills mean less
abundant ¶ oceans; more oil spills mean fewer wonderful, pristine beaches; ¶ more oil spills mean
fewer jobs.¶ While not intentional, spills do happen. And according to ¶ the National Academy of Sciences, no current cleanup
methods ¶ remove more than a small fraction of oil spilled in the marine ¶ waters, especially in the
presence of broken ice.¶ Approximately 120 million gallons of oil end up in the ¶ world's oceans every
year from oil platforms, marine ¶ transportation, vessel discharges, and accidents. The impacts ¶
of oil on fish and other wildlife are numerous and well own. ¶ Ingesting oil is usually lethal, and long-term exposures can ¶ result in serious
problems, such as reduced reproduction and ¶ organ damage.
offshore drilling hurts local economies and environments
Gatti ’10 (Dan Gatti, an environmental policy analyst at Environment America, 5-4-10, “In
defense of a moratorium on offshore oil drilling,” http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezraklein/2010/05/in_defense_of_a_moratorium_on.html)
3) A
moratorium on offshore drilling might, however, make a huge difference to the lives of
millions of Americans who live on the coasts of California, South Carolina, Maryland, or
Florida, who do not want to suffer the horrendous damage to the environment and local
economy currently being experienced by the residents of Louisiana and Mississippi .
even small oil spills devastate coastal regions
BBC News, 11-19-02, “Oil spill: Consequences for wildlife,”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2491965.stm
At the coast¶ When
the oil reaches coastal waters, it wreaks far more damage on fragile
ecosystems, some of them vital to local human economies.¶ While much of the coastline of this part of Spain is rocky,
there are sheltered inlets, or seas, mudflats and saltmarshes which are particularly vulnerable. ¶ Robin Law says: "With fuel oil, when
it reaches shallow waters, quite a bit will pick up sand and sink. ¶ "Every time there is a
storm, fuel oil is released out of the sand again."¶ Particularly under threat are filter-feeders
- shellfish such as mussels - which live in this mud or sand.¶ They may simply be smothered by the oil as it
settles, or suffocated by the oil as they try to pass tainted water through their delicate gills and feeding apparatus. ¶ It is possible for
shellfish to be tainted by the toxicity of the oil over periods of years. ¶ This has severe implications
for not only the shellfish populations themselves, but the creatures, including birds and humans, which feed on them.¶ A
good example of this happening is a relatively small spill of fuel oil in Buzzard's Bay, US, in 1969.¶ This caused
tainting of shellfish which was persistent many years after the incident.¶ While the rocky shore may be
cleaned relatively quickly by storms and normal wave action, the tranquillity of the seas could delay this yet
further.¶ Even saltmarsh plants, if severely oiled, can take up to a decade to recover fully.¶
According to Robin Law, efforts to clean up sensitive areas such as this can be as damaging as the oil
itself. ¶ Experts say the balance of nature on north-west Spain's rocky shores could be damaged by the spill.¶ Nature's repair work¶ Dr Paul
Gilliland, a marine policy adviser with English Nature, says subtle changes could take years to correct
themselves.
Brink - travel and tourism
travel and tourism on brink now
Houston ’08 (James R. Houston, the Director of the Army Corp of Engineers’ Engineer
Research and Development Center’s Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Summer 2008, “The
economic value of beaches – A 2008 update,” Shore & Beach 76.3, google it)
U.S BEGINNING TO LOSE LEAD¶ In the early 1990s the U.S. was domi-nant in world travel and tourism. The¶ U.S.
Travel and Tourism Administration¶ (1993) noted, “There is probably no¶ country in the world that has a greater¶ comparative advantage in
tourism than¶ the United States.” The Wall Street Jour-nal(1994) noted the U.S. domination of¶ world travel and tourism, saying the U.S.¶
receives over 45 percent of the developed¶ world’s travel-and-tourism revenues and¶ 60 percent of its profits. However, when¶ a new Congress
swept in in 1996, it abol-ished the U.S. Travel and Tourism Ad-ministration, whose primary function was¶ marketing U.S. tourism
internationally.¶ The National Oceanic and Atmospheric¶ Administration (1998) noted as a result¶ of the abolishment, “The
U.S. is
(the)¶ only country in the developed world¶ without a government-funded National¶ Tourism
Office and (it) bodes badly for¶ the country’s future tourism growth.”¶ The decline of the U.S. travel and¶
tourism industry started playing out in¶ earnest in the 1990s. America’s share of¶ the global inbound tourism market has¶ dropped 35 percent
since 1993. The
U.S.¶ has lost 18% of its international market¶ share in just five years. The
significant¶ drop in international tourists has cost the¶ American economy $286 billion in
the¶ last 13 years including $44 billion in¶ 2005 (National Tour Association 2007).¶ There is a world economy in
tourism¶ that gives consumers ample choices and¶ produces stiff worldwide competition for¶
tourists. If Florida beaches become run¶ down, German tourists can choose Span-ish
beaches. If Hawaiian beaches decline,¶ Japanese tourists can choose Australia’s¶ Gold Coast.
In fact, there is evidence that¶ international tourists are shifting away¶ from the U.S. Waikiki beaches are se-verely eroded, and the number of
Japa-nese tourists visiting Hawaii is down 36%¶ from 1997 to 2006 (Hawaii Department¶ of Business, Economic Development,¶ and Tourism
2006). In contrast, the num-ber of international tourists visiting the¶ restored beaches of Australia’s Gold¶ Coast has been increasing by about
5%¶ annually (Tourism Queensland 2007).¶ This worldwide competition is well¶ recognized outside the U.S. For example,¶ Houston (1996) noted
that in the mid-1990s the U.S. spent only $16.3 million¶ in advertising to its international tourist¶ markets, and this compared to Spain’s¶ $170
million in advertising (Washington¶ Post1995). The U.S. ranks 33¶ rd¶ in the¶ world in international tourism advertise-ment, trailing Malaysia and
Tunisia,¶ (Brooks 1995), spending less than 4% of¶ what Greece spends and 5% of what¶ Spain spends (National Tour Association¶ 2007). India
spends four times as much¶ advertising to international tourists than¶ does the U.S. (National Tour Association¶ 2007). Ireland spent 180 times
more per¶ capita on tourism advertisement than the¶ U.S (National Oceanic and Atmospheric¶ Administration 1998).¶ However, even¶ this
minimal U.S. spending of $16.3 mil-lion on advertisement to international¶ tourist markets was eliminated when¶ Congress abolished the U.S.
Travel and¶ Tourism Administration in 1996. The¶ U.S.
currently has no nationally-funded¶ tourism
advertising while countries such¶ as Australia, Canada, France, Greece,¶ Singapore, and
Spain each spend $100¶ million or more annually on international¶ marketing (Brooks 1995; Hotelonline¶ 1998; Balzer 1998).
AT: Drilling good for the Economy – Beaches Outweigh
damage to coastal economies outweighs benefits of offshore drilling
Moriarty ’11 (Jim Moriarty, the CEO of The Surfrider Foundation, a grassroots non-profit
environmental organization that works to protect and preserve the world's oceans, waves, and
beaches, 1-14-11, “The Economic Case Against Offshore Drilling,”
http://www.theinertia.com/politics/the-economic-case-against-offshore-drilling/)
Let’s start by establishing
the value of the coastlines we’re talking about in the United States. Coastal
tourism in CA, FL, NY, NJ and WA alone account for $129 billion dollars in leisure and
hospitality companies, services and jobs. Fishing from both coasts accounts for $11.8 billion and
$1.9 billion in recreational and commercial fishing respectively.¶ If we stripped away the political
rhetoric and solely looked at offshore drilling with economic lenses we’d see that it doesn’t make
good business sense.¶ We know the most expensive property is coastal. A house near or on the
coast is worth much more than a comparable house away from the coast.¶ This summer’s
horrific BP spill delivered an economic hit that will be in the billions of dollars to the Gulf
Coast.
tourism and fishing industries outweigh offshore drilling-doesn’t create jobs
Hebert ’09 (Evan H Josef Hebert, a Energy Reporter with The Associated Press, 2-11-09,
“Activists push for offshore energy drilling ban,” Associated Press Financial Wire, Lexis)
At a House hearing, Philippe Cousteau, grandson of legendary ocean explorer Jacques Cousteau, urged Congress to reinstate the offshore
drilling bans that until last fall had been in effect for 25 years in Atlantic and Pacific coastal waters.¶ "It's
absolutely critical for the health of the oceans," said Cousteau, a board member of the advocacy group Ocean
Conservancy. "Oil spills still occur."¶ Actor Ted Danson, a founder and board member of Oceana, an ocean advocacy group, said
offshore drilling is "flirting with disaster" because of potential oil spills not only at drilling
rigs, but in transporting the oil produced.¶ Danson said the country should be moving away from fossil fuels to
renewable energy sources such as offshore wind and energy from tidal waves because of the threats of climate change, which he said is another
threat to ocean health.¶ Tourism
and fishing industry spokesmen from North Carolina, Florida and California said they
are worried offshore drilling would impact billions of dollars a year fishing and tourism
industries.¶ "We cannot afford any kind of spill. ... We can't take the risk," D.T. Minich, executive
director of the St. Petersburg/Clearwater, Fla. visitor's bureau, told the House panel. ¶ W.F. "Zeek" Grader Jr., executive director of the Pacific
Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, said he's not so worried about spills, but that exploratory
seismic activities and
drilling rigs would "kill fish... scare fish and make it impossible for fishing operations to be
held."¶ But Jefferson Angers, president of the Center for Coastal Conservation in Louisiana said: "The fishing and oil and gas industries have
coexisted in Louisiana for half a century and they've worked well together." ¶ On restoring the broad moratorium, "it may be the ship has already
sailed," said Rahall, adding that the issue is, "do we need buffer areas, do we need certain areas off limits?"¶ Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington,
the House Resources Committee's top Republican, countered that expanded offshore drilling is "about creating good American jobs" and
reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil and the OPEC oil cartel.¶ But energy
experts acknowledge that any new
offshore oil development would do little to spur short-term job creation and that it would
take years for new leases to be issued and another 5 to 7 years before oil would begin to
flow from any new discoveries.
Working/MISC – Look into this for wave
2
Warming DA – NB to Renewables CP
No solvency and turn – imports are irrelevant - consumption patterns draw
the US into warming based aid that hamstrings the military and turns the
terror advantage – independently it causes natural disasters, diseases, water
shortages,
Rebecca Lefton And Daniel J. Weiss, 1-13-2010, "Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit,"
American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2010/01/13/7200/oildependence-is-a-dangerous-habit/
Meanwhile, America’s voracious oil appetite continues to contribute to another growing
national security concern: climate change. Burning oil is one of the largest sources of
greenhouse gas emissions and therefore a major driver of climate change, which if left
unchecked could have very serious security global implications. Burning oil imported from
“dangerous or unstable” countries alone released 640.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere, which is the same as keeping more than 122.5 million passenger vehicles
on the road. Recent studies found that the gravest consequences of climate change could
threaten to destabilize governments, intensify terrorist actions, and displace hundreds of
millions of people due to increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters, higher
incidences of diseases such as malaria, rising sea levels, and food and water shortages. A
2007 analysis by the Center for American Progress concludes that the geopolitical implications
of climate change could include wide-spanning social, political, and environmental
consequences such as “destabilizing levels of internal migration” in developing countries and
more immigration into the United States. The U.S. military will face increasing pressure to
deal with these crises, which will further put our military at risk and require already
strapped resources to be sent abroad. Global warming-induced natural disasters will create
emergencies that demand military aid, such as Hurricane Katrina at home and the 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami abroad. The world’s poor will be put in the most risk, as richer countries are more
able to adapt to climate change. Developed countries will be responsible for aid efforts as well as
responding to crises from climate-induced mass migration. five biggest companies importing oil
from unstable countries Military and intelligence experts alike recognize that global warming
poses serious environmental, social, political, and military risks that we must address in the
interest of our own defense. The Pentagon is including climate change as a security threat
in its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, a congressionally mandated report that updates
Pentagon priorities every four years. The State Department will also incorporate climate change
as a national security threat in its Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. And in
September the CIA created the Center on Climate Change and National Security to provide
guidance to policymakers surrounding the national security impact of global warming. Leading
Iraq and Afghanistan military veterans also advocate climate and clean-energy policies because
they understand that such reform is essential to make us safer. Jonathan Powers, an Iraq war
veteran and chief operating officer for the Truman National Security Project, said “We recognize
that climate change is already affecting destabilized states that have fragile governments. That’s
why hundreds of veterans in nearly all 50 states are standing up with Operation Free—because
they know that in those fragile states, against those extremist groups, it is our military that is
going to have to act.” The CNA Corporation’s Military Advisory Board determined in 2007 that
“Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile
regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United
States.” In an update of its 2007 report last year CNA found that climate change, energy
dependence, and national security are interlinked challenges.
link card – has some internal links - turns heg
Beddor et al 9 “Securing America’s Future Enhancing Our National Security by Reducing Oil Dependence
and Environmental Damage” Christopher Beddor, Winny Chen, Rudy deLeon, Shiyong Park, and Daniel J. Weiss
August 2009, http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2009/08/pdf/energy_security.pdf
The significant contribution of oil combustion to global warming leads to serious national
security concerns as well. As mentioned earlier, oil consumption results in far-spanning and
acute environmental damage, including global warming. In 2007, the CNA Military Advisory
Board published a study on tie effect of climate change on American security interests. Their
study found that "climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security .. . [It] acts
as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most vola- tile regions of the world."
It Will:
- Create destabilizing conditions, including reduced access to fresh water, impaired food
production, health catastrophes, and loss of land, which will place additional strains on weak
governments.
- Exacerbate marginal living standards in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle
East, creating widespread instability and increasing the likelihood of conflict, mass migrations,
and failed states.
- Make Defense Department operations more vulnerable because extreme environmental
conditions will considerably increase operation and maintenance costs, compromise seal-level
military bases, complicate ship and aircraft operations, and expose the national power grid upon
which DOD is heavily reliant. 33
These findings were backed up by a 2007 Center for American Progress report, "The Security
Challenges of Climate Change," which in addition to these findings identified other effects on
national security. These included "increased U.S. border stress due to the severe effects of
climate change in parts of Mexico and the Caribbean" and a "strain on the capacity of the United
States-and in particular the U.S. military-to act as a 'first responder' to international disasters and
humanitarian crises due to their increased fre- quency, complexity, and danger?"
A few weeks ago retired Admiral Dennis McGinn re-emphasized these key points in testi- mony
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee." He stressed that climate change places our
military in jeopardy and is enormously expensive; our reliance on fossil fuels compromises our
foreign policy and international leverage; and fossil fuels make the U.S. economy vulnerable to
sudden shocks.
AT: oil=/=warming --- reject their evidence – its oil lobby lies
Rebecca Lefton And Daniel J. Weiss, 1-13-2010, "Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit,"
American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2010/01/13/7200/oildependence-is-a-dangerous-habit/
Many major oil companies and their trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, are
some of the most vocal opponents of increasing American energy independence and reducing
global warming pollution. This is likely because they profit by buying oil from “dangerous or
unstable” states. This includes importing oil from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Mauritania, Iraq,
Congo, Colombia, Chad, and Algeria.
In 2008 Chevron made a profit of $23.9 billion while nearly half of its imports—138 million
barrels of oil—came from these countries. ExxonMobil made $45.2 billion while getting 43
percent of its oil—205.6 million barrels—from these countries. About one-third of BP’s
imports—110.6 million barrels—were from these countries in 2008, when the company’s profits
were $25.6 billion.
Approximately 25 percent of ConocoPhillips’ imports were from “dangerous or unstable”
countries—116.7 million barrels—in 2008, contributing to its $52.7 billion profit. And Shell
raked in $31.4 billion that year, also importing one-quarter of its oil—61.8 million barrels—from
these countries. (Note: Shell includes Shell Chemical LP, Shell Chemical Yabucoa Inc, Shell US
Trading Co, Shell Oil Co, and Shell Oil Co Deer Park).
With that kind of money it’s no wonder Big Oil is doing everything in its power to maintain the
status quo. The companies are spending record amounts on lobbying to stop clean-energy and
climate legislation. The American Petroleum Institute spent $75.2 million for public relations
and advertising in 2008, and in the third quarter of 2009 the oil and gas industry outspent all
other sectors lobbying on climate change, with Exxon Mobil leading the pack spending $7.2
million.
percentage of crude oil imported by five biggest companies
Oil companies are also the main source of funding for API’s front group, Energy Citizens, which
makes false claims that climate change legislation will be a national energy tax and job killer. In
reality, passing clean-energy and pollution reduction legislation will be affordable and even save
consumers money while creating a net of 1.7 million jobs.
The plan paralyzes action on warming – breeds complacency
James Stafford and James Kwak 1/8/13 (Albany Tribune, Stafford interviews Kwak who is
an associate professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, “The Political
Implications Of America’s Oil And Gas Boom – James Kwak Interview”
http://www.albanytribune.com/08012013-the-political-implications-of-americas-oil-and-gasboom-james-kwak-interview/)
James Stafford: What changes do you see happening to the domestic energy landscape in Obama’s second term?¶ James Kwak: The
biggest trend is obviously the domestic boom in shale gas and oil, and hence the biggest question is what will happen to it.
Frankly, I don’t see anything happening to change the current trend . Plentiful fossil fuels do
have obvious short-term economic benefits that the Obama administration is not blind to.
Insofar as the administration wants to reduce fossil fuel consumption—and it’s not clear
that they do want to—there is enough opposition, both in Congress and in the courts, to justify a policy of
doing nothing.¶ James Stafford: What are your thoughts on America’s oil and gas boom?¶ James Kwak: There are some obvious benefits.
Lower dependence on politically unstable parts of the world is clearly good. Shifting electricity production from coal to natural gas is also good.
One can also come up with a plausible scenario in which plentiful natural gas buys us the time necessary to shift toward greater usage of
renewable energy sources.¶ On the downside,
I worry about the political implications of the boom.
Increased domestic production will encourage politicians to declare victory on the energy front
without doing anything about the big, long-term problem: climate change. Before, fears of rising
energy prices and dependence on the Middle East were encouraging political investment in
renewables and conservation. Now the message from ExxonMobil and its allies will be that we don’t
need to do anything because we are a (net) energy exporter and energy is cheap. That will
further reduce the chances that we do anything meaningful about climate change .
Renewables CP/DA
More domestic oil production still leaves the US vulnerable to oil shocks.
Can’t solve without renewables.
John Aziz ’14, economics and business correspondent at The Week, 6-20-14, The Week, “The
lessons of Iraq: The U.S. economy is still way too vulnerable to oil price shocks”,
http://theweek.com/article/index/263515/the-lessons-of-iraq-the-us-economy-is-still-way-toovulnerable-to-oil-price-shocks
With Iraq facing an incipient civil war, the issue is coming back into focus. A big enough oil
spike translating into soaring energy prices could once again squeeze American consumers and
businesses, leaving the economy vulnerable to a recession. Of course, the U.S. is in a better
position to weather the storm than in 2007. Interest rates remain near historic lows, giving
debtors some breathing room. The total level of debt relative to the size of the economy is
lower, too. And the U.S. — thanks to a shale oil and natural gas boom — is much less
dependent on energy brought in from abroad. But just because the U.S. is importing a
lower proportion of its energy doesn't mean that it isn't vulnerable to energy shocks. The
U.S. energy market is part of the global energy market. If oil supplies are cut off or
impeded in the Middle East (or elsewhere) the U.S. will still be affected, because the rest of
the global marketplace will still need to buy oil. That means that the price of oil for
Americans will still rise. All of which is to say that true energy independence isn't as simple
as pumping more hydrocarbons at home. That may relieve both American and global
energy pressures to a certain degree, but only in a transitional sense. It is not a real
solution. A real solution would be a renewable energy economy in which energy and
transportation are fuelled by local sunlight, wind, and water. If you're capturing the bulk of
your energy needs on your rooftop, driving an electric car, and storing excess power in a
battery in your garage, you're far more insulated against geopolitical turmoil in oilproducing regions.
Drilling doesn’t create jobs or help the economy – trades off with renewable
energy and any positive effects are temporary
Zipf 13. Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action Inc. Wall Street Journal. April
14, 2013. Should the U.S. Expand Offshore Oil Drilling?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324020504578398610851042612 //NM
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 lo se 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.
Domestic production can’t solve. Transition to renewable energy key.
Ken Blackwell ’14, Former Secretary of State in Ohio, Senior Fellow for Family
Empowerment at the Family Research Council, 6-23-14, CNSNEWS, “Iraq Crisis: Latest Sign of
U.S. Vulnerability to Oil Price Spikes”, http://cnsnews.com/commentary/ken-blackwell/iraqcrisis-latest-sign-us-vulnerability-oil-price-spikes
Energy security starts and ends with oil consumption, and that means we have to do
something about transportation. About 70 percent of the oil America consumes is used in
the transportation sector, and 92 percent of all fuel used to power that sector is derived
from oil. Reducing oil dependence in the transportation sector is a tremendous opportunity
to de-link the American economy from the global oil market and the various events-like the
crisis in Iraq-that impact that market. The solutions have already begun to be implemented.
More than 200,000 electric vehicles and 140,000 vehicles powered by natural gas are currently
on America's roadways. Simply converting the nation's fleet of heavy-duty, long-haul trucks to
natural gas would save two million barrels of oil every day. The widespread adoption of
passenger vehicles powered by electricity would have an even greater impact, and such vehicles
are selling at a crisp pace and earning rave consumer reviews. Still, more must be done to
accelerate this progress. The country needs to increase its investment in oil-displacement
transportation technologies so that we can more quickly sever our ties to the global oil
market and shield our economy from its volatility. Doing so will also benefit our national
security, as decreasing our economic exposure to oil price spikes will provide foreign and
defense policymakers with expanded options.
Renewable Fuels are the ONLY thing that can solve our dependence on Oil
Buis 2013, Tom Buis, October 25 2013, CEO of growth energy, “Only Renewable Fuels Like Ethanol Can Keep U.S. From Oil
th
Dependence”, http://www.rollcall.com/news/only_renewable_fuels_like_ethanol_can_keep_us_from_oil_dependence-228649-1.html //RD
It’s been 40 years this month since the oil embargo of October 1973. What have we learned as a
nation and what has changed? Unfortunately, not much. Four decades later we are still exposed to oil
shocks, disruption and price hikes — because even after 40 years, we still overwhelmingly rely on one
source of fuel: oil. During that time we’ve experienced price shock after price shock due to
unrest and instability in the Middle East. Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran
and now Syria — all unstable oil-producing nations in a region where even the slightest
disruptions can have a drastic ripple effect on the supply and price of oil. Ultimately the American
consumer is stuck footing the bill for an antiquated energy policy that is reliant on others. Wars have been fought, trillions of
dollars have been spent to protect the flow of oil, and trillions more of our wealth has been
transferred to foreign nations. But most important is the number of precious lives of
American soldiers lost because of our addiction to foreign oil. In reflecting on this anniversary, we
should recognize that it’s futile to put all of our eggs in one basket — what we need is a
diverse policy that helps shield us from the price hikes, supply shortages, shocks and whims
of foreign governments. Currently there is a massive gap in what Americans consume
compared to what we produce domestically. This leaves us no choice but to continue to
throw ourselves and our nation’s security interests at the mercy of those who are
frequently at odds with the policy interests and values of western society. The most recent
data shows total U.S. oil consumption at a whopping 18.5 million barrels per day and
domestic production at 6.48 million barrels per day. So, even during what has been
described as a renaissance of domestic energy production at home with new techniques, we
are only producing slightly more than one-third of what we consume each day. This is
simply not sustainable . The price of oil continues to rise and, what’s more, oil is a global
market, so regardless of our domestic production there is nothing we can do to control the
price domestically. At the end of the day OPEC is still setting the price. Oil still costs more than $100 per barrel and America still
spends $1 billion per day for oil imports. As a result, gas prices remain high and so do the profits of oil companies. There is a better
way, one that allows us to achieve energy independence while continuing to produce energy
domestically: renewable fuels. However, just as we have found a way to produce renewable fuel at home, now making up 10
percent of our gasoline supply, oil companies are doing everything in their power to roll back any progress and repeal the renewable-fuel
We must not let
the special interests of oil continue to hold our nation’s energy needs hostage to the most
unstable and hostile regions in the world. That is why Congress passed the RFS in 2005 —
an energy policy designed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And it’s doing just that.
standard. Their goal is to reduce the use of renewables and maintain the status quo of our dependence on fossil fuels.
Renewables solve econ adv
Rebecca Lefton And Daniel J. Weiss, 1-13-2010, "Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit,"
American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2010/01/13/7200/oildependence-is-a-dangerous-habit/
Clean energy can help bring the economy back to life
The United States has an opportunity right now to reduce its dependence on foreign oil by
adopting clean-energy and global warming pollution reduction policies that would spur
economic recovery and long-term sustainable growth. With a struggling economy and record
unemployment, we need that money invested here to enhance our economic competitiveness.
Instead of sending money abroad for oil, investing in clean-energy technology innovation would
boost growth and create jobs.
Reducing oil imports through clean-energy reform would reduce money sent overseas for oil,
keep more money at home for investments, and cut global warming pollution. A Center for
American Progress analysis shows that the clean-energy provisions in the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act and ACES combined would generate approximately $150 billion per year
in new clean-energy investments over the next decade. This government-induced spending will
come primarily from the private sector, and the investments would create jobs and help reduce
oil dependence.
And by creating the conditions for a strong economic recovery, such as creating more finance for
energy retrofits and energy-saving projects and establishing loans for manufacturing low-carbon
products, we can give the United States the advantage in the clean-energy race. Investing in a
clean-energy economy is the clear path toward re-establishing our economic stability and
strengthening our national security.
Biodiversity Turns – Need Impacts
Uniqueness – Regulations Working Now
Regulations sufficient now - BP spill response resolved major issues
Eric Smith, professor at UC Santa Barbar 8-30-2010 (Foreign Policy, "Think Again: Offshore
Drilling", http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/30/think_again_offshore_drilling)
A retooling of the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS), which oversees offshore
drilling, is certainly in order, but waiting for a perfect world makes no sense. The regulatory
problems are well on their way to being solved. The blitz of publicity given to oil-industry
regulation after the spill and the first round of bureaucratic reforms announced by Interior
Secretary Ken Salazar in May are already having a huge impact. The people in charge of
safety and environmental protection are now in a separate agency, which no longer reports to
the administrators who are under pressure to increase oil revenues. They are also getting more
money for inspections and more time to conduct them. Their work is also being monitored
by reporters looking for a sensational story. Together, these changes will make offshore oil a lot
safer.¶ Before the blowout, MMS actually seemed to be doing a pretty good job. There had
been no major oil spill from an offshore platform in U.S. waters since 1969. Both the number
of spills and the amount of oil spilled into the ocean had been declining decade by decade since
the 1970s. Offshore drilling was getting safer even as more oil was being produced. The
result was that both government regulators and oil companies let complacency and
overconfidence set in. MMS became a captured agency.
Internal Link - Birds
Spills kill biodiversity
Sierra Club ’09 (Sierra Club, America's largest and most influential grassroots environmental
organization, 8-09, “Don’t Rig Our Coastal Economy,”
www.sierraclub.org/habitat/downloads/2009-08-coasts.pdf)
America’s coasts make up a mosaic of sea grasses,¶ wetlands, estuaries, beaches, and dunes.
Offshore¶ drilling is simply not compatible with this fragile ecosystem . ¶ Take the Gulf of Mexico,
for example. It is home to more than twenty species of marine¶ mammals, four species of shark,
seven species of tuna and five species of sea turtle. All¶ five turtle species found in the Gulf are
either endangered or threatened, and are more¶ vulnerable to the adverse impacts of
drilling in their habitat. The Gulf is the heart of one¶ of the most important bird migration
corridors in the world, and is traveled by hundreds¶ of species of birds each year¶ 7¶ . Offshore oil rigs interfere with
migratory routes, spawning,¶ and feeding areas. The pollution and routine spills associated with
drilling also destroy¶ critical nesting areas and make fishing more difficult for birds .¶ 8¶ In addition to
migratory¶ birds, the eastern Gulf of Mexico supports large populations of brown pelicans and bald¶ eagles. ¶ When oil reaches
shallow waters, it picks up sand, and sinks as a result. On the sea floor,¶ the oil persists for a
long time, threatening the filter feeders such as shellfish and mussels¶ and everything that eats them, including humans.
Additionally, every time a storm¶ churns up the water oil is released out of the sand again.¶
9¶ Many refuges, national¶ seashores and protected areas around our country have been put in place to protect some¶
of our most endangered species. Even these areas, however, are threatened by drilling as¶ spills and pollutions are
not localized events, but rather travel far and wide in ocean¶ currents.
Internal Link - Ocean Life
offshore drilling is bad for the ocean ecosystem
Wangsness ’08 (Lisa Wangsness, a Reporter with Globe Newspaper Company, 6-20-08,
“New offshore drilling not a quick fix, analysts say,” Boston Globe, Factiva)
Environmentalists argue that the pollution
caused by drilling could compromise fragile ecosystems for
very little economic benefit when the United States should be focusing on conservation - the cheapest barrel of oil, they like to
say, is the one we don't have to buy - and developing better renewable energy sources.¶ They point to a number of environmental risks.
Drilling fluids contain toxic chemicals. If oil is found, one of the waste products is briny water that also contains toxic
chemicals. The noise from drilling could harm some sea animals, such as whales. And the oil would also
have to be transported by pipeline or ship, creating its own environmental impacts. Then there
is a risk of spills.¶ "Today we think offshore oil drilling could be the final straw in the unfolding collapse
of New England fisheries," said Priscilla Brooks, director of the Ocean Conservation Project at
the Conservation Law Foundation, which successfully fought a proposed drilling lease on Georges Bank in the late 1970s.
offshore drilling is horrible for ocean ecosystems
Danson ’09 (TED DANSON, a longtime ocean activist and a member of the Board of
Directors of Oceana, 2-11-09, “OFFSHORE DRILLING:¶ ENVIRONMENTAL AND¶
COMMERCIAL PERSPECTIVES¶ OVERSIGHT HEARING¶ before the¶ COMMITTEE ON
NATURAL RESOURCES¶ U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg47302/html/CHRG-111hhrg47302.htm)
I. Moratoria in the OCS areas and Bristol Bay are Needed to Protect ¶ our Oceans¶ Our oceans and coasts are now at greater risk than at any time
¶ since the early 1980's. Since 1982, Congress has protected Outer ¶ Continental Shelf water in the ``Lower-48'' with a moratorium on oil ¶ and
gas activities. Congress also has enacted a moratorium to protect ¶ the sensitive areas of Bristol Bay, Alaska. In addition, Executive ¶ moratoria
have been issued by two Presidents. In 1990, responding to ¶ the 11 million gallon Exxon Valdez oil spill, President George H. W. ¶ Bush used
his executive authority to place a moratorium on any leasing ¶ or pre-leasing activity in Lower-48 offshore areas, including a small ¶ portion of
the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. In a separate action President ¶ Clinton limited new drilling in the rich Bristol Bay fishing grounds in ¶ Alaska until
2012. Unfortunately, Congressional
protections for Bristol ¶ Bay lapsed in 2004 and President George W.
Bush lifted the Executive ¶ moratorium in 2007. The broader Congressional moratorium for
the Lower-¶ 48 offshore areas was allowed to expire in 2008, and the Executive ¶
moratorium was lifted by President George W. Bush that same year. ¶ Reinstating both of the Congressional moratoria,
including valuable ¶ habitat areas that were previously removed, such as Bristol Bay, must ¶ be a top priority. The Executive moratoria also
should be reinstated to ¶ provide an added layer of protection for our marine life and coasts. ¶ Offshore
oil and gas activities create
a myriad of threats to ¶ marine life including accidents, routine spills, disposal of wastes ¶
such as drilling muds and produced water, and noise pollution. The ¶ dramatic increase in
shipping activity associated with platform ¶ maintenance, and increased risks of marine
mammal collisions, also ¶ imperil marine species, many of which are already threatened or ¶ endangered.¶
Accidents inevitably accompany all stages of offshore production. ¶ The most typical causes of accidents
include equipment failure, ¶ personnel mistakes, and extreme natural impacts from seismic activity, ¶ ice movements, hurricanes, and so on.¶
According to the National Academy of Sciences, ``No
current cleanup ¶ methods remove more than a small
fraction of oil spilled in marine ¶ waters, especially in the presence of broken ice.'' Discharges ¶ associated
with oil platforms, marine transportation, vessel discharges ¶ and accidents add around 120
million gallons of oil to the world's ¶ ocean every year, about a third of all inputs combined, including ¶
natural oil seeps.¶ The impacts of oil on wildlife are numerous. Wildlife can become ¶ coated in or ingest oil, which will often lead to a
quick death. ¶ However, oil in the environment can also result in non-lethal impacts, ¶ such as reduced reproduction and liver damage. These
impacts are a ¶ death sentence for most animals in the wild, crippling their ability to ¶ avoid predators, find food and shelter and reproduce, all of
which are ¶ essential to healthy functioning populations.¶ Toxic compounds in oil have a similarly varied set of effects. ¶ These can include
reduced reproductive success due to interruption in ¶ breeding behaviors and damage to the reproductive and immune systems. ¶ Oil's toxic
constituents can also damage a long list of organs in ¶ marine animals including the eyes, mouths, skin, nasal cavities, ¶ nervous system, red blood
cells, liver, lungs and stomach. It can also ¶ cause damage to turtle and fish eggs, larvae and young, all leading to ¶ varied impacts on survival and
reproductive success.¶ Oil can also affect the habitat of marine species, for example, by ¶ contaminating breeding beaches, estuaries, coral reefs,
and seagrass ¶ and mangrove communities that are important feeding, breeding and ¶ resting grounds for a variety of species.¶ Finally, these
impacts can linger for extremely long time periods ¶ creating continuous low-level exposure
to oil in the form of tarballs, ¶ slicks, or elevated levels of chemicals that can cause cancer, ¶
developmental and reproductive impairments.¶ Besides accidents, daily offshore drilling
operations also create ¶ other forms of pollution that affect marine and other wildlife. ¶ Offshore
rigs can dump tons of drilling fluids, metal cuttings, ¶ including toxic metals (lead, chromium and mercury) and carcinogens ¶ (such as benzene,
xylene and toluene and especially polycyclic aromatic ¶ hydrocarbons) into the ocean. Drilling muds are used to lubricate and ¶ cool the drill bit
and pipe. One drilling platform normally drills ¶ between seventy and one-hundred wells and discharges more than 90,000 ¶ metric tons of drilling
fluids and metal cuttings into the ocean. One
¶ well can potentially affect an area of 1000 meters when it
comes to the ¶ discharge of these materials. Some studies suggest that drilling-¶ related chemicals can stunt fish growth
and affect breeding patterns. ¶ For example, cod exposed to this waste water had smaller eggs and ¶ delayed spawning time.
Offshore drilling catastrophic for marine and other wildlife
Oceana 12. The Three Myths of Offshore Drilling. Oceana – Protecting the World’s Oceans –
leading international organization for ocean conservation, Senate Committee.
http://oceana.org/es/our-work/climate-energy/offshore-drilling/learn-act/the-three-myths-ofoffshore-drilling //NM
Offshore drilling operations create various forms of pollution that have considerable
negative effects on marine and other wildlife.¶ These include drilling muds, brine wastes,
deck runoff water and flowline and pipeline leaks. Catastrophic spills and blowouts are also
a threat from offshore drilling operations. These operations also pose a threat to human health, especially to
oil platform workers themselves.¶ Drilling muds and produced water are disposed of daily by offshore
rigs. Offshore rigs can dump tons of drilling fluid, metal cuttings, including toxic metals, such as lead chromium and mercury, as well as
carcinogens, such as benzene, into the ocean.¶ Effects of Drilling Muds¶ Drilling muds are used for the lubrication and cooling of the drill
bit and pipe. The muds also remove the cuttings that come from the bottom of the oil well and help prevent blowouts by acting as a sealant. There
are different types of drilling muds used in oil drilling operations, but all release
toxic chemicals that can affect marine
life. One drilling platform normally drills between seventy and one hundred wells and discharges more than 90,000 metric tons of drilling fluids
and metal cuttings into the ocean.¶ Effects of Produced Water¶ Produced water is fluid trapped underground and brought up with oil and
gas. It makes up about 20 percent of the waste associated with offshore drillin g. Produced waters
usually have an oil content of 30 to 40 parts per million. As a result, the nearly 2 billion gallons of produced
water released into the Cook Inlet in Alaska each year contain about 70,000 gallons of oil.¶
Effects of Exploration¶ Factors other than pollutants can affect marine wildlife as well. Exploration
for offshore oil involves firing air guns which send a strong shock across the seabed that
can decrease fish catch, damage the hearing capacity of various marine species and may
lead to marine mammal strandings.¶ More drilling muds and fluids are discharged into the ocean during exploratory drilling
than in developmental drilling because exploratory wells are generally deeper, drilled slower and are larger in diameter. The drilling waste,
including metal cuttings, from exploratory drilling are generally dumped in the ocean, rather than being brought back up to the platform.¶ Effects
of Offshore Oil Rigs¶ Offshore
oil rigs may also attract seabirds at night due to their lighting and
flaring and because fish aggregate near them. Bird mortality has been associated with
physical collisions with the rigs, as well as incineration by the flare and oil from leaks. This process of
flaring involves the burning off of fossil fuels which produces black carbon.¶ Black carbon contributes to climate
change as it is a potent warmer both in the atmosphere and when deposited on snow and
ice. Drilling activity around oil rigs is suspected of contributing to elevated levels of
mercury in Gulf of Mexico fish.
Internal Link – Arctic Spills
Arctic drilling causes spills - will be worse than BP
Karl Mathiesssen, internally citing Simon Boxall professor at the University of Southhampton
10-2-2013 (The Guardian, "Drilling in the Arctic - what is the environmental impact?",
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/02/drilling-arctic-environmental-impactgreenpeace-piracy)
Dr Simon Boxall from the University of Southampton says that, at present, Arctic drilling does
not have the technology to clean up a spill.¶ "Companies will say that it won't happen, we've
got so many fail-safes these days that it's a perfectly safe operation. But there's no such thing as
a fail-safe. If there was a a fail-safe, we wouldn't have planes crashing... Human error and
humans cutting corners means that accidents happen. And there will be a spill in the Arctic.
And as with the Gulf of Mexico it'll probably be fumbling in the dark a bit, dealing with it as it
happens."¶ But Boxall says that the Arctic climate means an oil spill in the far north could be
much harder to clean up than the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico.¶ "The
environment in the tropics and certainly in the Gulf of Mexico is such that nature kicks in
and it deals with oil that gets spilt in the tropics very efficiently. Even in fairly temperate
climates, bacteria take over and they clean up what we leave behind. Now in the Arctic things
are very different. In the Arctic it's much much colder first of all, which means that the
whole process takes much longer. So we have a problem, the fact that we are putting our oil in
the fridge and that keeps it in its natural state.¶ "Problem number two is the spill, when it
happens, whether it's from a tanker, whether it's from a drill operation if it's close to the ice edge,
will go under the ice and we have no research and no experience with a spill that goes
under ice.¶ "Problem number three is that we are working in a remote part of the world. In the
Gulf of Mexico we are close to big international airports, we can get big heavy equipment in.
There are ships sitting there, there's big industry there. There are small ships ready to deal with
clean up and that sort of thing. That infrastructure doesn't exist in the Arctic."¶
Internal Link - Oil Spills
Unfixed design and equipment problems mean that expanding offshore
drilling would lead to devastating oil spills – most recent analysis
Banerjee 6/6. Nila Banerjee, writer energy/environment policy for Washington DC Bureau,
LA Times, NY Times. 6/6/14. “Flawed drilling gear still in use after BP oil spill, board says.”
LA Times. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gulf-spill-20140606-story.html //NM
Design problems with a blowout prevention system contributed to the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon oil rig disaster, and the same equipment is still commonly used in drilling four
years after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, according to a report issued by the federal Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board.¶ The board concluded that the "blowout preventer" — a five-story-tall series of seals and
valves that was supposed to shear the drill pipe and short-circuit the explosion — failed for reasons the oil industry did
not anticipate and has not fully corrected.¶ Despite improved regulation of deep-water drilling since the disaster, the
board found that problems persist in oil and gas companies' offshore safety systems. ¶ "This results
in potential safety gaps in U.S. offshore operations and leaves open the possibility of
another similar catastrophic accident," said Cheryl MacKenzie, lead investigator of the safety board inquiry.¶ The blowout
of BP's Macondo well in April 2010 killed 11 men and spewed nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, making it the worst
offshore oil disaster in United States history. Several federal commissions have investigated the missteps that occurred on the Deepwater Horizon
drilling rig in the days and hours leading up to the
explosion, which investigators said had its roots in corporate
mismanagement and inadequate government oversight of the oil industry.¶ The chemical safety
board, which examines industrial accidents but lacks regulatory authority, focused its inquiry on the blowout preventer and safety practices. The
blowout preventer, or BOP, sits on the ocean floor below the drilling rig. The drilling pipe from the platform runs through the blowout preventer
into the earth and toward the oil and gas deposits.¶ If oil or gas, which is under high pressure underground, accidentally comes up the well bore
and pipe, the blowout preventer is supposed to cut off the flow higher up to the platform. In
the case of the Deepwater
Horizon, the lower valves in the blowout preventer closed, letting pressure continue to
build, which eventually bent the drill pipe, the safety board study found.
Expanded offshore drilling inevitably causes devastating oil spills
Mufson 12. Steven Mufson, energy and financial reporter, The Post. April 19, 2012. “Two
years after BP oil spill, offshore drilling still poses risks.” The Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/two-years-after-bp-oil-spill-offshoredrilling-still-poses-risks/2012/04/19/gIQAHOkDUT_story.html //NM
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.
Oil spills devastate the entire marine ecosystem – plants, animals, and habitats
Graham and Kelley 11. January 16, 2011. Excerpt from National Commission on the BP
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, "Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Spill and the
Future of Offshore Drilling," Report to the President, January 2011. Bob Graham and William K.
Reilly, Co-Chairs. The Encylopedia of the Earth. http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/162358/
//NM
The Impact on Nature¶ The Deepwater Horizon oil
spill immediately threatened a rich, productive marine
ecosystem. To mitigate both direct and indirect adverse environmental impacts, BP and the federal government took proactive measures in
response to the unprecedented magnitude of the spill.3 Unfortunately, comprehensive data on conditions before the spill—the natural “status quo
ante” from the shoreline to the deepwater Gulf—were generally lacking.4 Even now,
information on the nature of the
damage associated with the released oil is being realized in bits and pieces: reports of
visibly oiled and dead wildlife, polluted marshes, and lifeless deepwater corals. Moreover, scientific
knowledge of deepwater marine communities is limited, and it is there that a significant volume of oil was dispersed from the wellhead, naturally
and chemically, into small droplets.5
Scientists simply do not yet know how to predict the ecological
consequences and effects on key species that might result from oil exposure in the water
column, both far below and near the surface.6¶ Much more oil might have made landfall, but currents and winds kept most of the oil
offshore, and a large circulating eddy kept oil from riding the Loop Current toward the Florida Keys.7 Oil-eating microbes probably broke down
a substantial volume of the spilled crude, and the warm
temperatures aided degradation and evaporation8—
favorable conditions not present in colder offshore energy regions.9 (Oil-degrading microbes are still
active in cold water, but less so than in warmer water.) However widespread (and in many cases severe) the natural resource damages are, those
observed so far have fallen short of some of the worst expectations and reported conjectures during the early stages of the spill.10 So much
remains unknown that will only become clearer after long-term monitoring of the marine ecosystem. Government scientists (funded by the
responsible party) are undertaking a massive effort to assess the damages to the public’s natural resources. Additionally, despite significant delays
in funding and lack of timely access¶ to the response zone, independent scientific research of coastal and marine impacts is proceeding as well. ¶ A
rich marine ecosystem. Particularly along the Louisiana coast,
the Gulf of Mexico is¶ no stranger to oil spills.11 But
unlike past insults, this one spewed from the depths of the ocean, the bathypelagic zone (3,300–13,000 feet deep). Despite the cold,
constant darkness and high pressure (over 150 atmospheres), scientists know that the region has
abundant and diverse marine life. There are cold-water corals, fish, and worms that produce light like fireflies to compensate
for the perpetual night. Bacteria, mussels, and tubeworms have adapted to life in an environment
where oil, natural gas, and methane seep from cracks in the seafloor. Endangered sperm whales dive
to this depth and beyond to feed on giant squid and other prey.12¶ A dark tongue of oil invaded sensitive wetlands last May near Grand
Isle, Louisiana, despite the presence of booms deployed to stop it. In a hopeful development over the summer, scientists found new plant growth
in similarly oiled marshes, indicating that oil had not penetrated into root systems. ¶ Patrick Semansky/Associated Press¶ Higher up the water
column, light and temperature gradually increase and the ascending sperm whales—and Macondo well oil—encounter sharks, hundreds of fish
species, shrimp, jellyfish, sea turtles, and dolphins. As the sperm whales surface for air at the bright and balmy Gulf surface, they pass through
multitudes of plankton, floating seaweed beds, and schools of fish. Some of these fish species spend their early lives in the coastal waters and
estuaries; others travel along annual migration routes from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf. The
floating seaweed beds
(sargassum), fish larvae, and plankton drift with the surface currents and are driven by the wind—as is the oil
rising from below. The critical sargassum habitats lure sea turtles, tuna, dolphins, and
numerous game fish to feed on the snails, shrimp, crabs, and juvenile species that seek shelter and food in the seaweed.13¶
Overhead are multitudes of seabirds—among them brown pelicans, northern gannets, and laughing gulls—that in
turn feed in the ocean and coastal estuaries.14 Dozens of bird species fly the Mississippi migration route each year, a
major attraction for bird watchers, who flock to coastal Louisiana and Texas to catch a glimpse of migrating and resident shorebirds and nesting
seabirds. Some
of these birds feed on estuarine shrimp, fish, and crabs; others depend on
shellfish and other small organisms that populate the expansive mudflats. Larger wading birds stalk
their prey in the shallow water of mangroves, marshes, and other habitats that shelter fish and frogs. Raptors, including ospreys, bald eagles, and
peregrine falcons, also pluck their prey from any of these environments and carry it to their perches. As
the unprecedented volume of oil
gushing from the Macondo blowout reached the surface, it had the potential to affect all of
these marine and coastal organisms and to wash into the salt marshes, mudflats, mangroves, and
sandy beaches—each in its way an essential habitat at one or more stages of many species’ lifecycles.15 And
these marine and coastal species are so interdependent that a significant effect on any one
has the potential to disturb several existing populations in this complex food web.16
Oil spills from drilling devastate the environment – in particular coral reef
populations that are hotspots of biodiversity
Lajeunesse 13. Sara Lajeunesse, reporter, July 10, 2013. Reporting on Charles Fisher,
professor of biology at Penn State University. Penn State News. “Biologist investigates lasting
ecological impacts of Deepwater Horizon oil spill¶ At the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, in the
vicinity of the Macondo well, Charles Fisher discovered previously unseen impacts on coral
communities.” http://news.psu.edu/story/281127/2013/07/10/research/biologist-investigateslasting-ecological-impacts-deepwater-horizon //NM
On five subsequent cruises over the next two years, Fisher and his team have explored for additional sites and revisited the established ones to
check the corals' statuses. They have carefully monitored about 50 of the corals that they first discovered in November 2011. Those that were not
too heavily impacted seem to be recovering.¶ "When I say recover," notes Fisher, "I don't mean that tissue died and the coral got better. I mean
they were covered with slime, but they never died .
These corals still do not look as healthy as corals at other
sites, and we may have to monitor them for several years before we will know their
ultimate fate."¶ The corals that were heavily impacted, on the other hand, are largely not
recovering. "We are seeing absolute proof of total death of parts of them," says Fisher. Since corals
are colonial, branching animals, parts of them can die while other parts remain alive. ¶ Specifically, at the first damaged site they witnessed -- the
last site of the October cruise -- the
researchers have discovered that 86 percent of the coral colonies
show signs of damage, with 46 percent exhibiting impact to more than half the colony, and
23 percent displaying more than 90 percent damage.¶ At each site visited, the researchers deployed markers and
set up permanent monitoring stations with a goal of returning to them again and again to monitor both natural processes and, potentially, longterm effects.¶ "At that depth and at those temperatures in the deep sea, life passes at a slow pace," notes Fisher. "These are animals that often live
500 years. They live slow; they die slow. We'll have to monitor the sites for a decade before we'll have very much confidence we know the full
extent of the impact."¶ What's Next?¶ The team's second cruise, which took place in December 2010 and made use of the Alvin deep-diving
submarine, included Helen White, a geochemist from Haverford College. White used state-of-the art oil fingerprinting technology and determined
that the brown
muck on the corals did, indeed, include oil from the Macondo well.¶ Fisher's
research to date has demonstrated that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill killed some corals.
As a result, BP is going to have to pay. But how much and to whom?¶ "People have asked me how much a dolphin is worth, and there is no clearcut answer," says Timothy Zink, spokesperson for NOAA, the organization that oversees natural resource damage assessments performed by
researchers like Fisher, tabulates the check for the parties responsible, and formulates and carries out a plan for restoring the ecosystem.¶ "The
public needs to be compensated for its losses, and not just for the resource itself, but for the
human use of the resource -- such as recreational fishing, bird watching, and going to the
beach -- as well," said Zink. "The final price that BP will pay will be based on the full cost of restoring the environment back to what it was
on the day the oil spill happened."¶ Unfortunately for deep-water corals, the full effects of the spill may
not be felt for many years, too late for any near-term settlement to fully cover them.¶ "I
believe everyone involved would like to settle as soon as we can," says Fisher. "However, the full extent of damage to deepsea ecosystems may not manifest itself until after a settlement is reached. If corals all over
the deep gulf start dying, and we thought only those very close to the Macondo well would
die, then we have to reassess the situation." In that case, Zink says, the investigation could be reopened.¶ BP has already
paid over $20 billion to cover some of the damages from the spill, and in a November 2012 settlement with the Justice Department, agreed to pay
$4 billion in criminal fines. The company has also committed hundreds of millions to research into understanding the effects of oil spills on
ecosystems and preventing future disasters.
Oil spills can have long term effects on the environment, including threatened
species like sea turtles – BP proves
Michaelson 4/9. John Michaelson, reporter Public News Service with the National Wildlife
Federation. Progress Illinois. April 9, 2014. “Environmental Impact Continues Four Years After
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill “http://www.progressillinois.com/quickhits/content/2014/04/09/impacts-continue-four-years-bp-oil-spill-disaster //NM
Nearly four years after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a new study
says the disaster is far from over.¶ Much research remains to be done, said Dr. Doug Inkley, senior scientist for the National
Wildlife Federation, but the science shows that wildlife still are feeling the impacts and the oil is not
gone.¶ "There is oil on the bottom of the gulf, oil is washing up on the beaches and oil's still in
the marshes," Inkley said. "I'm really not surprised by this, to tell you the truth. In Prince William Sound in Alaska, 25 years
after the wreck of the Exxon Valdez, there are still some species that have not fully
recovered — two-and-a-half decades later."¶ The April 20, 2010, explosion on BP's Deepwater rig killed 11 people and
sent more than 4 million barrels of oil into the gulf, in the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history. ¶ The report examined how the spill
has affected more than a dozen species in the gulf. Inkley said that includes issues with oysters
and tuna, loons and pelicans, sperm whales and dolphins.¶ "Dolphins in the heavily oiled area of Barataria Bay
are still sick and dying," he said. "The evidence is stronger than ever, according to NOAA, that these deaths are connected to the oil spill - 900
dolphins since the oil spill began. If you line up those 900 dolphins from head to toe, that's one-and-a-half miles of dead
dolphins."¶ The spill also affected five sea turtle species found in the Gulf of Mexico, all of them
listed as either threatened or endangered. Pamela Plotkin, director of Texas Sea Grant, said that includes the
Kemp's ridley sea turtle, which had seen its population rebound year after year until Deepwater. Now, she said, they're also
being threatened by last month's spill in Galveston Bay.¶ "The biggest concern is the oil that has left the bay and
has moved south down towards Matagorda Island and the Aransas Wildlife Refuge," she said. " So, that oil that has moved
offshore is going right through the migratory corridor of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle."¶ Up to
168,000 gallons of oil spilled in late March when a barge and a ship collided in Galveston Bay, which averages close to 300 oil spills of various
sizes each year.
Sea turtles are a keystone species and extirpation or extinction would destroy
biodiversity
Wilson et al. l.c. 9., Wilson, E.G., Miller, K.L., Allison, D. and Magliocca, M., researchers
Oceana, Oceana – Protecting the World’s Oceans – leading international organization for ocean
conservation, Senate Committee. “WHY HEALTHY OCEANS NEED SEA TURTLES: THE
IMPORTANCE OF SEA TURTLES TO MARINE ECOSYSTEMS” last citation 2009.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CDgQFjAF&ur
l=http%3A%2F%2Foceana.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Freports%2FWhy_Healthy_Oce
ans_Need_Sea_Turtles.pdf&ei=0_eyU8rUCuLksAS95oKoAw&usg=AFQjCNGO7cKXoaBsYfjcuriTqA8vR8xxw //NM
Sea turtles clearly play important roles in marine ecosystems. Each sea turtle species uniquely affects the
diversity, habitat and functionality of its environment. Whether by grazing on seagrass, controlling sponge
distribution, feasting on jellyfish, transporting nutrients or supporting other marine life, sea turtles
play vital roles in maintaining the health of the oceans.¶ Unfortunately, over the past few centuries, sea turtle
populations have experienced significant declines. Before a species goes physically extinct, it can become ecologically extinct. Ecological
extinction, which occurs when the number of individuals in a species becomes so small that it is unable to perform its ecological role, happened
to green sea turtles in the Caribbean. At the time of Columbus’ voyages to the Caribbean, sea turtles were so abundant that vessels that had lost
their way could follow the noise of sea turtles swimming along their migration route and find their way to the Cayman Islands.93 Current
estimates of Caribbean sea turtle populations at that time range from 33 million to 660 million.94 Greens in the Caribbean consumed such large
amounts of seagrass, sponges and jellyfish that their virtual ecological extinction resulted in major changes in the structure and function of the
marine ecosystem.95¶ Sea
turtle populations around the world have dwindled in recent centuries
and in many places, continue to decline. For some populations, there is risk not only of
ecological extinction, but of physical extinction as well. In the words of Aldo Leopold, one of the most influential
conservation thinkers of the 20th century, “To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of
intelligent tinkering.”96 Applying this principle to the oceans, quite simply, we need to
keep all of the species. Natural resource managers are moving towards an “ecosystem approach” to managing the oceans. The
first step in taking an ecosystem approach is to ensure the survival of the key components
of the ecosystems, which unequivocally must include sea turtles. The next step is to ensure
their populations actually recover. Increased populations of sea turtles are a key step in
restoring the balance among ocean species, an essential step toward restoring healthy ocean ecosystems.
Internal Link - Pollution
Offshore drilling waste discharges exacerbate marine pollution
GOC 13. Global Oceanic Commission, November 2013. “Elimination of pollution that affects
the high seas”
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEIQFjAF&url
=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globaloceancommission.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FGOCpaper03pollution.pdf&ei=51mwU8mCG9SxsQSJ3YHwBQ&usg=AFQjCNEZsxMRRFodDCbj5XjcHO
ZkGPLl-g //NM
Deliberate discharges and dumping operations at sea.
The discharge and dumping at sea of certain types of
wastes is still considered acceptable under international law (see below), and illegal discharges and dumping
operations continue to take place in the high seas with little oversight, from shipping and
offshore installations. Offshore oil and gas installations routinely discharge harmful wastes
into the sea. A previous assessment under the Bonn Agreement3, for example, strongly suggested that oil pollution from legal
discharges to the southern North Sea far exceeded those thought to have arisen from
accidental spills4. There is also concern about the potential harmful effects that could arise from seabed mining5. Land-based discharges
and emissions. Pollution can travel great distances in the marine environment, as shown by the high
concentrations of persistent organic pollutants in the Arctic, mainly caused by pesticide run-off and/or by discharges and emissions of industrial
chemicals and waste products to water and air in Europe and North America6. A further indication is the existence of the five gyres, where
floating litter concentrates in the middle of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans7.
Offshore drilling creates harmful byproducts and pollution from production
and equipment deterioration
Kyle 13. Jessica Kyle, writer EX-PATT magazing, the University of Kentucky and Lexington
Patterson’s School Magazine of Foreign Affairs. November 15, 2013. “Combating Pollution:
Offshore Drilling & Regional Sea Regimes” http://expattmagazine.com/combating-pollution/
//NM
However, despite the strong economic incentives, the
current frantic pursuit of offshore petroleum resources
has intense environmental ramifications. Offshore drilling creates harmful byproducts that
are discharged into surrounding waters during the drilling process. Additionally, drilling
equipment is prone to failure and deterioration, which can lead to dangerous accidents and
catastrophic oil spills or gas leaks. Furthermore, as demand for petroleum products continues to increase, oil and gas
companies have begun drilling deeper and deeper wells to access previously untapped
deposits. The exploitation of deeper fields is generally more challenging to execute, resulting in a greater
probability of pollution occurring. Pollution resulting from these aspects of offshore
drilling is not only an issue of moral concern, but also has a tangibly negative impact on neighboring states. Regulation of some kind is
necessary in order to promote environmentally safer and more sustainable drilling practices and curb the pollution caused by offshore drilling.
Internal Link - Warming
Expanding offshore drilling would exacerbate global warming
- also says warming now
CAP et al 13. Center for American Progress, The Wilderness Society, Alaska Wilderness
League. September 30, 2013. America’s Arctic – The Dual Threat of Climate Change and
Offshore Drilling. http://www.alaskawild.org/wpcontent/uploads/Arctic_Climate_Drilling_021613_FINAL_public.pdf. //NM
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
2012 Arctic Report Card documented dramatic changes, including record lows for sea ice
and snow extent.¶ Thawing permafrost: Melting tundra is accelerating warming by releasing additional carbon as it thaws,
CLIMATE CHANGE¶
potentially adding 0.4°F –1.5°F to total global warming by 2100.¶
soot), significantly increases climate change by darkening ice surface, causing it to absorb more heat and accelerate warming.¶ OFFSHORE
of
DRILLING¶
climate stability, the International Energy Agency warned that two-thirds of the world’s proven fossil fuel
reserves need to remain in the ground, untouched.¶ Exploiting reserves in the Arctic
Ocean has the potential to release an additional 15.8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere when
burned – equivalent to the emissions from all passenger cars and light trucks in the US over a 13
year time period and raising global CO2 concentrations by 7.44 parts per million (ppm).iii 7.44 ppm
equals 10% of the total rise in the global CO2 concentration over the past 50 years.iv¶
Expanding offshore drilling would devastate the environment and accelerate
climate change – empirics prove
Banerjee 13. Subhankar Banerjee, researcher Center for Research on Globalization. “Arctic
Methane Release and Global Warming - Let Us Now Sing About the Warmed Earth” July 30,
2013. GlobalResearch. http://www.globalresearch.ca/arctic-methane-release-and-globalwarming/5344315 //NM
Obama in the US, and Harper in Canada, in tandem, are turning North America into a petro–imperial
and petro–despot continent. This does not bode well for solving the climate crisis. It’s worth
reviewing briefly some of the extraction projects taking place now. Since there has been a lot of discussion about tar sands in Alberta, I’ll focus
on a few others:¶ Shell’s
drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in Arctic Alaska (in 2011 I wrote that
Obama administration refused to do an Environmental
permits were rubber–stamped, and despite repeated appeals, the
Impact Statement (EIS)—a blatant violation of the National Environmental Policy Act).¶ Massive expansion of gas fracking—onshore that
Tara Lohan of AlterNet has been writing about all summer, and also offshore off of the coast of California that we learned last week from a
Truthout investigative report (no EIS was done for the California offshore fracking project either). ¶ Hyper–deepwater
drilling in
the Gulf of Mexico (earlier this year Shell announced plan to drill the deepest offshore oil well in the Gulf of Mexico—almost
two miles below the water surface, which is twice the depth of BP’s Deepwater Horizon
well that caused the worst oil spill in US history).¶ Expansion of coal mining in the Powder River Basin of
Wyoming.¶ On July 9 I wrote, “In 2011 Obama sold the Powder River Basin in Wyoming to Big Coal. … Precisely because of this greedy
decision two years ago, today the activists in the Pacific Northwest are fighting the coal–port through which (if built) Wyoming coal would go to
Asia.” And on July 25 Lynne Peeples wrote on Huffington Post that this coal project “could create more national and global environmental
impact than a Canadian company’s proposal to ferry Albertan tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast via the Keystone XL pipeline.”¶ Leah
Donahey of the Alaska Wilderness League shared with me similar concerns that Obama’s plan for
drilling in the Arctic Ocean might have more environmental impact than the Keystone XL
pipeline. Last week she wrote to me in an email: “The President is still considering offering new drilling
leases in the Arctic Ocean and Shell could be back at this time next year to drill.Ӧ My intention
here is not to start a debate about which is the worst offender, but to point out that all of these mega extraction projects
will cause massive eco–cultural devastations and contribute enormously to global climate
change.
Internal Link - Environment (MISC)
Offshore drilling in the outer continental shelf would devastate the
environment – 4 reasons
Defenders of Wildlife 14. Defenders of Wildlife, national conservation organization
dedicated to wildlife and habitat conservation with federal and international policymakers.
niSearch, Free eBook Database. “Outer Continental Shelf Drilling“ 2014.
http://nisearch.com/book/long-term-environmental-effects-offshore-oil-gasdevelopment_31512.html. //NM
Ocean Floor. Drilling
infrastructure permanently alters ocean floor habitats. Drill rig
footprints, undersea pipelines, dredging ship channels, and dumped drill cuttings-- the rock
material dug out¶ of the oil or gas well-- are often contaminated¶ with drilling fluid used to lubricate and regulate¶ the pressure in
drilling operations. The fluid contains petroleum products and heavy metals. Strewn on the ocean floor, contaminated
sediments can be carried by currents over a mile from the rig, sharply reducing
populations of small bottom- dwelling creatures that are important to the rest of the food chain and
biomagnifying toxic contaminants in fish we eat.¶ Spills, Leaks and Catastrophes. Even with safety
protocols in place, leaks and spills are inevitable— each year U.S. drilling operations send
an average of 880,000 gallons of oil into the ocean. Then there are the unanticipated catastrophes. In 2005,
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed 113 of the oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and
damaged 457 pipelines. Hurricane damage caused at least 124 different spills, totaling over 17,700 barrels (743,000 gallons) of
petroleum products. Oil is toxic to the plants and microscopic animals that form the basis of the
marine food chain. It also poisons birds, mammals and fish. Those not killed outright can suffer a slow death
from debilitating illness and injury.¶ Coastal Economies. Even a medium sized spill can be a major economic disaster in coastal areas dependent
on tourism or fishing as a major economic driver. Hundreds of thousands of existing jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity depend on
clean coasts and healthy coastal waters. Routine air and water pollution from offshore rigs, coupled with industrialization in sensitive areas, can
quickly undermine local economies.¶ Air Pollution. A
2004 inventory of air pollution in the Gulf of Mexico
found that OCS oil and gas activities account for the overwhelming majority of air
pollutants: 89% of carbon monoxide, 77% of NOx emissions, 72% of volatile organic compounds emissions, 69% of particulate matter
emissions, and 66% of sulfur dioxide.¶ Invasive Species. Ships, drilling equipment and even rigs are used and
relocated all around the world. Animals that colonize a rig surface in one area essentially
get a “free ride” to a new habitat, where they can easily become invasive. The brown
mussel (a marine species with impacts similar to zebra mussels), several species of jellyfish, barnacles and other nuisance
organisms can be spread by drilling equipment.
Drilling causes cutting and fluid discharges
Melton et al, 10-16-2000 (H. R. Melton, J. P. Smith, C. R. Martin, T. J. Nedwed, H.L. Mairs,
D. L. Raught, PHD, Chemical Engineering - ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company¶ PHD,
Physical Chemistry - ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company¶ BS, Chemical Engineering,
Business Administration - ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company PHD, Environmental
Engineering - ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company¶ MS, Ocean Engineering ExxonMobil Production Company¶ BS, Civil and Environmental Engineering - ExxonMobil
Upstream Development Company, respectively; Rio Oil and Gas Conference, OFFSHORE
DISCHARGE OF DRILLING FLUIDS AND CUTTINGS -A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE ON
PUBLIC POLICY, http://www.anp.gov.br/meio/guias/5round/biblio/IBP44900.pdf)
Drilling wastes comprise drilling fluids and drill cuttings. There are two basic types of drilling fluids:
water-based fluids (WBFs) and non-aqueous fluids (NAFs). WBFs have either fresh water or salt water
as the primary fluid phase, while NAFs have either refined oil or synthetic materials as the
primary fluid phase. For many wells, drilling conditions (e.g. deviated or horizontal wells, active shales) often require the use of
NAFs instead of WBFs for efficient, cost-effective operations. In most cases, both WBFs and NAFs are used in
drilling the same well, with WBFs used to drill the shallow portion of the well.¶ Drill cuttings are pieces of the
formation being drilled that are returned to the surface with drilling fluid. Solids control
equipment separates the cuttings from the drilling fluids so that the drilling fluid can be
reused. The cuttings then become a waste stream from the drilling process. A thin coating of
drilling fluid adheres to the cuttings. Cuttings volumes depend on the type of fluid used, the depth of the well, and the size of the
borehole. Estimated volumes per well range from 130 to 560 m3 per well (Hinwood, et al., 1994, USEPA, 1993).¶
WBF may be discharged intermittently during the drilling process in batches of about 20 to
30 m3 volume or in larger volumes (approximately 200 m3) at the end of the drilling process or when the fluid
system is changed out. The estimated volume of WBF discharges per well ranges from 500 to 1700
m3 per well. When NAFs are used, only the fluid that adheres to the cuttings is discharged. The valuable fluid is recycled for further use.¶
WBF consists of water, salts, barite, bentonite and other minor additives. WBF composition depends on the density of
the fluid. An example WBF composition for a 1190 kg/m3 fluid is (in wt %) 76 wt% water, 15% barite, 7 %
bentonite and 2% salts and other additives (National Research Council (US), 1983). The barium in barite, a
sparingly soluble mineral used to increase drilling fluid density, dominates the heavy-metal content of wastes from
drilling with either WBF or NAF. Other trace metals are present at much lower concentrations. Neff (1988) compared the
ranges of concentrations of metals found in drilling fluids and marine sediments and found that drilling fluids had
concentrations of barium and chromium that fell outside the observed range naturally
occurring in marine sediments.¶
Drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf would devastate birds, marine
mammals, fish, and sea turtles
Defenders of Wildlife 14. Defenders of Wildlife, national conservation organization
dedicated to wildlife and habitat conservation with federal and international policymakers.
niSearch, Free eBook Database. “Outer Continental Shelf
Drilling“http://nisearch.com/book/long-term-environmental-effects-offshore-oil-gasdevelopment_31512.html. //NM
Birds. Spills
pose direct mortality dangers through oiling and poisoning by ingestion as
animals try to clean themselves and as toxins build up in fish-eating birds. In addition, over
200,000 birds die annually in collisions with oil and gas platforms. Construction of new
pipelines will damage sensitive coastal habitats and marshes.¶ Marine Mammals. Seismic surveys conducted
during oil
and gas exploration cause temporary or permanent hearing loss, induce behavioral
changes, and even physically injure marine mammals such as whales, seals and dolphins.
Construction noise from new facilities and pipelines is also likely to interfere with foraging and communication behaviors of birds and mammals.
Risk of collisions with vessels and exposure to pollutants will also increase. Exposure to
petroleum causes tissue damage in the eyes, mouth, skin and lungs of marine mammals.
Because they are at the top of the food chain, many marine mammals will be exposed to the dangers of bioaccumulation of organic pollutants and
metals. Expansion of offshore drilling activities would further threaten imperiled species like the manatee. ¶ Sea Turtles. Dredging
of
nesting beaches, collisions, and noise disruptions are all potential threats to sea turtles.
Hatchlings are also particularly susceptible to oiling because they spend much of their time near the water surface, where spilled oil or tar
accumulates.¶ Climate Change. In the face of the climate crisis, the U.S. needs to look for ways to decrease petroleum consumption, not for ways
to increase it.
Oil drilling noise disrupts wildlife routes and habitats – studies prove
The Wilderness Society 14. The Wilderness Society, leading American conservation
organization composed of scientific and political leaders affiliated with the US Bureau of Land
Management. “
Six ways oil and gas drilling is bad news for the environment” The Wilderness Society. 2014.
http://wilderness.org/six-ways-oil-and-gas-drilling-bad-news-environment //NM
Disruption of wildlife migration routes and habitats from noise pollution, traffic and
fences¶ Biological systems are incredibly complex, and can fall victim to serious ecological consequences when disturbed by human activity.
Increased vehicle traffic at oil drilling sites contributes significantly to noise pollution in
wildlands. Wild mammals and birds respond to noise disturbances with short-term avoidance behavior, but many studies have
shown that these behaviors become habituated. Negative impacts include disruption of
songbird communication in breeding and nesting seasons, as well as altered predator and
prey dynamics. Mammals habituated to traffic may be more vulnerable to road kill.¶ Jackson Hole’s pronghorn
antelope are an unfortunate example of the effects that oil and gas development (in this
case, fencing and other infrastructure) have on wildlife's ancient migration routes. The survival
of pronghorn antelope in Grand Teton National Park depends on their annual migration from the Upper Green River Valley. This seasonal
migration is the second longest mammal migration route in the western hemisphere, clocking in at around 200 miles. But the Jonah oil and gas
field has made their age-old trek incredibly difficult, and
future energy development will ultimately cut off
their route at key passages, threatening their survival as a species.
Ocean life, particularly plankton, critical to overall biodiversity and
moderating global warming
Haddock 8. Steven Haddock, project lead and manager Zooplankton Biodiversity Project,
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. “The
Importance of Marine Biodiversity”
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDUQFjAD&u
rl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mbari.org%2Fnews%2Fpublications%2Far%2Fchapters%2F08_Mari
neBiodiversity.pdf&ei=y_CyU6XdBoupsQSOiYHwBA&usg=AFQjCNEiBHjxQCRfJcFM9eeL
vDruYCtcXw //NM
The oceans
cover over 70 percent of Earth’s surface and dominate the living space,
accounting for 98¶ percent of the potentially habitable volume. Of this space, most is represented by deep
water. This habitat is critical to the health of the planet as it holds more than 10 times the
carbon of all terrestrial plants and soil combined. It also has a moderating influence on our
planet’s tempera- ture and atmosphere. We cannot truly under- stand what is happening to global climate and the
natural environment without understand- ing the state of the deep sea. What is the health of this ecosystem? Is it changing like so many other
habitats? What will the future ocean hold? Informed answers to these questions rest on accurate estimates of deep-sea biodiversity and its changes
through time.¶ The midwater habitat, defined as the region lying between the sunlit upper ocean and the seafloor, is somewhat like outer space—
vast, cold, and three dimensional. But unlike space, it is inhabited by truly alien-looking life forms, from microbes to giant squid. Many of these
organisms are difficult to study, but their obscurity is not a reflection of their insignificance.
The most abun- dant vertebrates
on the planet are not mice or birds, but small fishes, living in the ocean’s twilight zone. The
most numerous “bugs” are not ants or even beetles, but little crustaceans called copepods . Although many of these animals
are unfamiliar even to marine biologists, they serve many interconnected functions:
phytoplank- ton in the sunlit surface waters turn carbon dioxide into oxygen and ultimately
sink, sending the carbon down to the seafloor. Plankton feed fish and even sustain animals
the size of whales.
Impact – Bio-D
Biodiversity decline causes extinction
Mmom 8 (Dr. Prince Chinedu, University of Port Harcourt (Nigeria), “Rapid Decline in
Biodiversity: A Threat to Survival of Humankind”, Earthwork Times, 12-8,
http://www.environmental-expert.com/resultEachArticle.aspx?ci d=0&codi=51543)
From the foregoing, it becomes obvious that the
survival of Humankind depends on the continuous existence and
conservation of biodiversity. In other words, a threat to biodiversity is a serious threat to the
survival of Human Race. To this end, biological diversity must be treated more seriously as a
global resource, to be indexed, used, and above all, preserved. Three circumstances conspire to give this matter an unprecedented
urgency. First, exploding human populations are degrading the environment at an accelerating
rate, especially in tropical countries. Second, science is discovering new uses for biological diversity in
ways that can relieve both human suffering and environmental destruction. Third, much of the diversity is
being irreversibly lost through extinction caused by the destruction of natural habitats due
to development pressure and oil spillage, especially in the Niger Delta. In fact, Loss of biodiversity is
significant in several respects. First, breaking of critical links in the biological chain can
disrupt the functioning of an entire ecosystem and its biogeochemical cycles. This
disruption may have significant effects on larger scale processes. Second, loss of species can
have impacts on the organism pool from which medicines and pharmaceuticals can be
derived. Third, loss of species can result in loss of genetic material, which is needed to
replenish the genetic diversity of domesticated plants that are the basis of world agriculture
(Convention on Biological Diversity). Overall, we are locked into a race. We must hurry to acquire the knowledge on which a wise policy of
conservation and development can be based for centuries to come.
AT: BP Proves Resiliency
BP doesn't disprove - unique conditions checked the impact and we don't
actually know its full extent
Graham et al, January 2011 (Bob Graham, Co-Chair¶ William K. Reilly, Co-Chair¶ Frances
Beinecke¶ Donald F. Boesch¶ Terry D. Garcia¶ Cherry A. Murray¶ Fran Ulmer; National
Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, " The Gulf Oil
Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling: Report to the President",
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-OILCOMMISSION/pdf/GPO-OILCOMMISSION.pdf
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill immediately threatened a rich, productive marine
ecosystem. To mitigate both direct and indirect adverse environmental impacts, BP and the
federal government took proactive measures in response to the unprecedented magnitude of
the spill.3 Unfortunately, comprehensive data on conditions before the spill—the natural
“status quo ante” from the shoreline to the deepwater Gulf—were generally lacking.4 Even
now, information on the nature of the damage associated with the released oil is being
realized in bits and pieces: reports of visibly oiled and dead wildlife, polluted marshes, and
lifeless deepwater corals. Moreover, scientific knowledge of deepwater marine communities
is limited, and it is there that a significant volume of oil was dispersed from the wellhead,
naturally and chemically, into small droplets.5 Scientists simply do not yet know how to
predict the ecological consequences and effects on key species that might result from oil
exposure in the water column, both far below and near the surface.6¶ Much more oil might have
made landfall, but currents and winds kept most of the oil offshore, and a large circulating
eddy kept oil from riding the Loop Current toward the Florida Keys.7 Oil-eating microbes
probably broke down a substantial volume of the spilled crude, and the warm temperatures
aided degradation and evaporation8—favorable conditions not present in colder offshore
energy regions.9 (Oil-degrading microbes are still active in cold water, but less so than in
warmer water.) However widespread (and in many cases severe) the natural resource damages
are, those observed so far have fallen short of some of the worst expectations and reported
conjectures during the early stages of the spill.10 So much remains unknown that will only
become clearer after long-term monitoring of the marine ecosystem. Government scientists
(funded by the responsible party) are undertaking a massive effort to assess the damages to
the public’s natural resources. Additionally, despite significant delays in funding and lack of
timely access¶ to the response zone, independent scientific research of coastal and marine
impacts is proceeding as well.
AT: Regulations Solve
Regulations fail in the context of deepwater drilling- BP spill proves
Graham et al, January 2011 (Bob Graham, Co-Chair¶ William K. Reilly, Co-Chair¶ Frances
Beinecke¶ Donald F. Boesch¶ Terry D. Garcia¶ Cherry A. Murray¶ Fran Ulmer; National
Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, " The Gulf Oil
Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling: Report to the President",
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-OILCOMMISSION/pdf/GPO-OILCOMMISSION.pdf)
The rig’s
demise signals the conflicted evolution— and severe shortcomings—of federal regulation of
offshore oil drilling in the United States, and particularly of MMS oversight of deepwater drilling in
the Gulf of Mexico. The regulatory context for the leasing procedures and safety and environmental
oversight that led up to the Macondo blowout took shape in the 1970s, when two conflicting
priorities dominated the political landscape. The first to appear, in the early 1970s, was the public
mandate for environmental protection, which prompted enactment of an extraordinary series of sweeping
regulatory laws intended, in the language of the National Environmental Policy Act, to “create and maintain
conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.”4 The second was
the nation’s drive for energy independence; it led to new policies designed to increase domestic
production and decrease American reliance on foreign energy supplies. Oil served as a catalyst for
both: the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969 helped to promote passage of demanding environmental protection mandates, and the OPEC oil embargo
of 1973 amplified the urgency of efforts to make the nation more energy self-sufficient.¶ The federal
regulation of offshore
drilling awkwardly combined the two priorities, as a series of Congresses, Presidents, and
Secretaries of the Interior—responding to competing constituencies in explicitly political ways—
sought to reconcile the sometimes conflicting goals of environmental protection, energy
independence, and revenue generation. In some offshore regions, oil drilling was essentially banned in response to
environmental concerns. Elsewhere, most notably in the Gulf, some environmental protections and safety
oversight were formally relaxed or informally diminished so as to render them ineffective,
promoting a dramatic expansion of offshore oil and gas production and billions of dollars in federal revenues. The origins of MMS
vividly illustrate that political compromise. Secretary of the Interior James Watt created the agency with great
fanfare in January 1982, aiming from the outset to promote domestic energy supplies by dramatically
expanding drilling on the outer continental shelf. He combined, in one entity, authority for regulatory
oversight with responsibility for collecting for the U.S. Treasury the billions of dollars of revenues obtained
from lease sales and royalty payments from producing wells.5 From birth, MMS had a built-in
incentive to promote offshore drilling in sharp tension with its mandate to ensure safe
drilling and environmental protection.¶ Revenue generation—enjoyed both by industry and
government—became the dominant objective. But there was a hidden price to be paid for those increased revenues.
Any revenue increases dependent on moving drilling further offshore and into much deeper
waters came with a corresponding increase in the safety and environmental risks of such
drilling. Those increased risks, however, were not matched by greater, more sophisticated regulatory
oversight. Industry regularly and intensely resisted such oversight, and neither Congress nor any of
a series of presidential administrations mustered the political support necessary to overcome
that opposition. Nor, despite their assurances to the contrary, did the oil and gas industry take the initiative to
match its massive investments in oil and gas development and production with comparable
investments in drilling safety and oil-spill containment technology and contingency
response planning in case of an accident.
Framing – Oil industry skews stats
Be skeptical of their evidence - the oil industry consistently misrepresents
risks of drilling
Theo Colburn (PhD, President of TEDX) 10-25-2007 ("Written testimony of Theo Colborn,
PhD, President of TEDX, Paonia, Colorado before the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, hearing on The Applicability of Federal Requirements to Protect Public
Health and the Environment from Oil and Gas Development, October 31, 2007"
http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/colburn_testimony_071025.pdf)
We also found that the
muds used in drilling are not as safe as industry claims. Using data from a
drilling operation where there had been a blowout, the pattern of the possible health effects of
the chemicals used in that operation, matched the general health pattern of our overall analyses . See Appendix
C. It is not general knowledge that when methane surfaces it brings along with it some very toxic gases
that are being vented by the tons every year from each operational unit. These include benzene,
toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene, often referred to as BETX. These VOCs, (Volatile Organic Compounds) plus the
VOCs in the products being used and the vast amounts of fugitive methane (which is a VOC and powerful greenhouse
gas) plus the NOx (Nitrogen Oxide) produced from diesel and gas burning stationary and mobile equipment to
produce and pump the gas are contributing to a growing increase in ozone in the west, that
heretofore has been ignored.¶ And it is not general knowledge that when methane surfaces, it is wet, and
this water, called condensate water, is often put into an evaporation pit on the well pad, or stored in
condensate tanks and later picked up by “water trucks” and moved to large, receiving, open evaporation
facilities. It takes fleets of water trucks to handle the volume of water surfacing. Last year, it was
estimated that 5,500 condensate tanks across western Colorado released over 100 tons of VOCs each,
including BTEX. This gas field activity will be a continuing source of NOx and VOCs for the life
of each well, which can be as long as 20 years.¶ We had been unable to find any information
on the chemical content of waste pits until we were sent results of a chemical analysis of the
residues from six waste pits in New Mexico. The 51 chemicals that were detected in those pits
produced a health pattern even more toxic than anything we found in the past. Most important is that 43 of
the 51 chemicals detected in the pits were not on our list of chemicals being used during natural gas
operations. And 13 of the chemicals were at concentrations above state and federal safety levels .
We found out later that except for those eight chemicals, their study design did not include testing for the
chemicals on our list of what is used during production and delivery. We also discovered that 84% of the chemicals
detected in the pits are on the CERCLA superfund list. See Appendix D.¶ A finding such as this
raises a number of questions that only adequately designed testing requirements and protocols
can address --- and points out the need for full disclosure. Data such as this also suggests that eventually, as each pit
and well pad is closed down, it has the potential to become a new superfund site.
Cards that will answer potential add-ons or new
advantages
No Peak Oil
Peak oil theory discredited
Klare 14 (Michael T. Klare – Author and Professor of Peace and World Security Studies, January 1st, 2014, The Huffington post – green,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/peak-oil-is-dead_b_4567978.html)//JS
, “peak oil” -- the once-popular notion that worldwide oil production would soon reach a maximum level and begin
an irreversible decline -- was thoroughly discredited. The explosive development of shale oil and other
unconventional fuels in the United States helped put it in its grave. As the year went on, the eulogies came in fast
and furious. “Today, it is probably safe to say we have slayed ‘peak oil’ once and for all, thanks to the
combination of new shale oil and gas production techniques ,” declared Rob Wile, an energy and economics reporter
Among the big energy stories of 2013
for Business Insider. Similar comments from energy experts were commonplace, prompting an R.I.P. headline at Time.com announcing, “Peak Oil is Dead.” Not so
fast, though. The present round of eulogies brings to mind the Mark Twain’s famous line: “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” Before obits for
peak oil theory pile up too high, let's take a careful look at these assertions. Fortunately, the International Energy Agency (IEA), the Paris-based research arm of the
major industrialized powers, recently did just that -- and theresults were unexpected. While not exactly reinstalling peak oil on its throne, it did make clear that
much of the talk of a perpetual gusher of American shale oil is greatly exaggerated. The exploitation of those shale reserves may delay the onset of peak oil for a
year or so, the agency’s experts noted, but the long-termpicture “has not changed much with the arrival of [shale oil].” The IEA’s take on this subject is especially
noteworthy because its assertion only a year earlier that the U.S. would overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s number one oil producer sparked the “peak oil is dead”
“ the United States is
projected to become the largest global oil producer” by around 2020, but also that with U.S.
shale production and Canadian tar sands coming online, “North America becomes a net oil
exporter around 2030.” That November 2012 report highlighted the use of advanced production technologies -- notably horizontal drilling and
deluge in the first place. Writing in the 2012 edition of its World Energy Outlook, the agency claimed not only that
hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) -- to extract oil and natural gas from once inaccessible rock, especially shale. It also covered the accelerating exploitation of
With the output of
these and other “unconventional” fuels set to explode in the years ahead, the report then suggested, the long awaited
peak of world oil production could be pushed far into the future. The release of the 2012 edition of World Energy
Canada’s bitumen (tar sands or oil sands), another resource previously considered too forbidding to be economical to develop.
Outlook triggered a global frenzy of speculative reporting, much of it announcing a new era of American energy abundance. “Saudi America” was the headline over
one such hosanna in the Wall Street Journal. Citing the new IEA study, that paper heralded a coming “U.S. energy boom” driven by “technological innovation and
risk-taking funded by private capital.” From then on, American energy analysts spoke rapturously of the capabilities of a set of new extractive technologies,
especially fracking, to unlock oil and natural gas from hitherto inaccessible shale formations. “This is a real energy revolution,” the Journal crowed.
Their evidence doesn’t assume “reserve growth” – data
Leonardo Maugeri June 2012 (“Oil: The Next Revolution¶ THE UNPRECEDENTED
UPSURGE OF OIL PRODUCTION ¶ CAPACITY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE
WORLD” The Geopolitics of Energy Project at The Harvard Kennedy Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Oil%20The%20Next%20Revolution.pdf)
Reserve growth is a crucial element in the evolution of oil supply, and is often ignored or ¶
underestimated. Most analyses on oil reserves and supplies focus primarily on depletion rates of ¶
already producing oil basins, subtracting from reserves, and assuming a reduction of future ¶ production, without
adequately factoring in their reserve growth. This underestimates the ¶ production of
several oilfields, particularly the larger ones. ¶ Two prominent geologists from the U.S. Geological
Survey conducted a brilliant examination of ¶ “reserve growth” on a global scale. According to
their extensive analysis , the estimated proven ¶ volume of oil in 186 well-known giant fields
in the world (holding reserves higher than 0.5 ¶ billion barrels of oil, discovered prior to 1981) increased from 617 billion
barrels to 777 billion ¶ barrels between 1981 and 1996.¶ 7¶ Because of “reserve growth,” a
country or a company may increase its oil reserves without ¶ tapping new areas if it can recover
more oil from its known fields. One of the best examples of ¶ the ability to squeeze more oil from the ground comes from the Kern River Field in
California.
Their authors assume knowledge of oil fields are static – they aren’t, proves
no peak
Leonardo Maugeri June 2012 (“Oil: The Next Revolution¶ THE UNPRECEDENTED
UPSURGE OF OIL PRODUCTION ¶ CAPACITY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE
WORLD” The Geopolitics of Energy Project at The Harvard Kennedy Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Oil%20The%20Next%20Revolution.pdf)
All of these
elements point to a fundamental concept: knowledge of already discovered oil ¶
resources is not static, but increases over time through the expansion of scientific
understanding ¶ of the fields . This explains why resources increase over time in tandem
with increased ¶ knowledge, though a dynamic, ongoing process. In other words, estimates of reserves are not ¶
carved in stone. ¶ This is even truer for what we do not know, that is, the unexplored areas of
the world. Only one ¶ third of the sedimentary basins of our planet (the geologic formations that may contain
oil) have ¶ been thoroughly explored with modern technologies including advanced seismic prospecting and ¶ deep
exploration drilling. For example, until a few years ago, it was impossible to look through ¶ pre-salt
formations with traditional seismic technology, or tap hydrocarbons below more than ¶ 5,000 or 6,000 feet of
water. Moreover, large parts of Africa and Asia and many deep and ultradeep offshore basins
are still unexplored. ¶ Exploration wells (also known as wildcats in oil jargon) represent a good proxy of the real ¶ knowledge of our
planet’s hidden secrets, because they follow careful geological and seismic ¶ evaluations of the subsoil. Only about 2,000 new wildcat
fields have been drilled in the entire ¶ Persian Gulf region since the inception of its oil activity,
compared to more than one million in ¶ the United States.¶ 10¶ Even today, more than 60 percent of
drilling activity is concentrated in North ¶ America (United States and Canada), as reflected by the rig count
numbers made available each ¶ month by Baker Hughes.
No peak oil – new tech, new massive deposits, their authors always shift the
goalposts
Peter C. Glover 8/15/12 (Canada Free Press, “Whatever Happened to Peak Oil?”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48813)
peak oil-ers like Jehovah’s Witnesses? Answer: When the definitive JW prediction of the ‘Day of Wrath’ failed in 1914, they did what false
prophets have done in every generation: shifted the goalposts (to 1975 in the case of JW’s—and wrong again). It’s what
false prophets do to save face, enabling them to keep fleecing the inherently gullible. Peak-oilers do likewise.¶
Having written their headline-grabbing, money-making blockbusters predicting the
imminent collapse of an oil-driven industrial world, peak-oilers like to maintain a ‘fluid’
Why are
approach to their predictions. In the case of oil, however, that’s becoming a tougher proposition, as their
ignorance of energy, economics and the sheer ingenuity of man is increasingly revealed in the looming global oil boom. ¶ The ‘new Middle East’¶ When John Fogerty
sang about coming home to Green River, the incentive was hardly a 200 year supply of oil. But that’s the reality of the world’s largest shale oil—more properly,
the GRF holds 3 trillion barrels of oil, around half of which is
deemed recoverable. That’s equivalent to the total of the world’s proven oil reserves .¶ At current levels of US
consumption—19.5 million barrels per day (bpd)—Green River on its own could supply domestic US needs for the
next 200 years . Then there are the Bakken and Eagle Ford shale plays. The former alone is
on a par with big Persian Gulf producing countries. Eagle Ford may even match the hydrocarbon
endowment of the Bakken/Three Forks play in North Dakota and Montana. To date, shale or tight oil has added about 700,000 bpd to US oil production.¶ No
wonder North America is being talked about in oil terms as ‘the new Middle East’ . But the Bakken and
Eagle Ford plays aside, there are a further 18 plays with plenty of energy potential across the U nited
States. And I haven’t even touched on the granddaddy of North American oil plays: Canada’s huge Athabasca oil
sands development. Just for good measure, a report by Citigroup analysts estimates that America’s “reindustrialization”, driven by its conventional
energy (oil and gas) sector, could see the creation of a whopping 3.6 million new jobs and add a full 3 percent to national GDP. ¶ Deepwater and beyond¶ A
USGS report of 171 global regions in 2012 further estimates that the world’s undiscovered
conventional and technically recoverable oil resources, much of it in deepwater, stands at
565 billion barrels of oil (BBO). That’s a figure that only represents known conventional resources. But it pales in
significance when unconventional resources, such as heavy oil, oil sands and shale oil, are taken into
consideration. As the USGS reports, the mean estimate for recoverable heavy oil from the Orinoco Oil Belt in Venezuela alone stands at
a mammoth 513 BBO. The shale oil potential of Russia’s Bazhenov Formation in Western Siberia may well
prove to be 80 times larger than America’s Bakken Formation. At present six of the world’s largest oil
fields in Ghana, Mexico, Kazakhstan, Iraq, Brazil and Venezuela (the Orinoco Field) all still await development—the last directly due
directly to President Chavez’s anti-West politics.¶ A recent study by Leonardo Maugeri, a former senior executive with Italian giant ENI,
confirms the global prognosis. Such is the positive nature of exploration, the impact of new
technologies and the sheer weight of finds and prospective new resources, Maugeri states: “Contrary to
what most people believe, oil supply capacity is growing worldwide at such an unprecedented level
deposit at the Green River Formation (GRF). The USGS estimates
that it might outpace consumption. This could lead to a glut of overproduction and a steep dip in oil prices.” Maugeri further suggests
that “capacity exists to increase the world’s 2011 production of 93 million barrels a day by as much as half, hitting, by 2020, around 111 million barrels a day—and
rising.¶ You might have thought: great news for those around the world being forced into increasingly fuel poverty through having to pay for national green taxes to
subsidize expensive, poor-generation, renewable projects. Not so it seems for social engineers like leading eco-activist and erstwhile Brit columnist, George Monbiot
or ‘Moonbat’ to his critics. Newly convinced by Maugeri’s study, and already having recanted his views on nuclear power, Monbiot has now recanted also his
For the
naive Monbiot, as for all peak-oiler scaremongers, rising oil and energy prices provided
proof positive that oil scarcity was just around the corner, a fact, they said, presaging the
end of industrial civilization as we know it. This was supposed to be the key ‘frightner’ for our technology-loving society to agree
to subsidize ridiculously expensive, poor-production, renewable energy. What the Guardian’s Moonbat and his colleagues failed to
understand, however, is a basic economic fact of energy life: high prices are also the market’s
way of incentivizing new investment and greater human ingenuity. Necessity being the mother of invention,
industry entrepreneurs duly came up with the goods, including the energy game-changer of the
hydraulic fracturing of shale deposits. Once again, the ‘end-is-nigh-ists’ like all false prophets, shifted
the prophetic goalposts. Instead of peak oil presaging social “disaster”, now the lack of a
prospective peak for oil production quickly became the disaster.¶
alarmist views on peak oil, claiming “the facts have changed”. (Actually George they haven’t, rather you’ve just become acquainted with them.)¶
Their author’s don’t understand economics or energy production – err on our
side, their authors are all biased
Peter C. Glover 8/15/12 (English writer & freelance journalist specializing in political, media
and energy analysis (and is currently European Associate Editor for the US magazine Energy
Tribune). He has been published extensively with columns at World Politics Review, TCS Daily
and American Thinker, Canada Free Press, “Whatever Happened to Peak Oil?”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48813)
“Peak idiocy”¶ So where
did it all go wrong for peak-oil alarmists? Interestingly, for better ‘experts’ than Monbiot, it
was their abject failure to understand either energy or the economics of energy. A double
failure that led inexorably into a state which economist Mike Munger rightly terms: “ peak
idiocy ”. Munger’s thesis bears repeating:¶ “Of all the idiotic things people believe, the whole “peak oil” thing
has to be right up there. It is literally impossible for us to run out of oil. We have never run
out of anything. And we never will.¶ If we did start to use up the oil we have ... three things
would happen.¶ 1. Prices would rise, causing people to cut back on use. More fuel efficient cars,
better insulation on houses, etc. Quantity supplied goes up.¶ 2. Prices would rise, causing people to
look for more. And they would find more oil, and more ways to get at it. Quantity demanded
goes down.¶ 3. Prices of oil would rise, making the search for substitutes more profitable. At that point
alternative fuels and energy sources would be economical, and would not require government
subsidies, because they would pay for themselves. The supply curve for substitutes shifts
downward and to the right.¶ Well put and accurate. And precisely the argument posited in Huber and Mill’s seminal book, The
Bottomless Well, which states: “Energy supplies are—for all practical purposes—infinite”. So why don’t
more allegedly informed pundits grasp the basic economics of energy? In a word: ideology . In this particular
case, the ideology of the leftwing social engineer prepared to politicize any issue for their personal ‘higher’ purpose. ¶ “The facts” were widely
known well before the likes of George Monbiot and co were forced to admit the jig was up, with Moonbat lamenting, “We were wrong on peak
oil. There’s enough to fry us all”. True—and on both counts. But a much more positive and factually-based perspective might conclude:
“there’s more than enough oil, coming from much friendlier countries, that turbo-boost the economy and
create millions of jobs for decades to come—and at a much cheaper rate, too.”¶ And which has the merit of more consistent “prophetic” insight?
Depends on whether a vacillating Moonbat/Guardian-esque ideology trumps the intellect, I guess.
Be skeptical of their evidence – it refers to peak oil as running out of
conventional oil, doesn’t assume new unconventional options
Doug Casey and Louis James 8/29/12 (Dough Casey: highly respected author, publisher and
professional investor who graduated from Georgetown University in 1968, Louis James: editor
of the international speculator, “Doug Casey on Peak Oil”
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/doug-casey-peakoil?quicktabs_casey_stock_simple_tabs=second)
there is a finite amount of conventional
crude in the earth's crust
Doug: In essence, that
light, sweet
. That
statement may not seem like a cosmic breakthrough, on its face. After all, if you have a 42-gallon barrel of oil and you consume 21 gallons, it's simple arithmetic that
21 gallans remain. On the other hand, wealth is something men create, not something that they simply find. That philosophical fact, however, doesn't really have much
Peak Oil theory.¶ This theory is widely misunderstood, even by economically literate people, oddly enough. Such people
rightly point out that the world will basically never run out of anything, as long as the
market is free to set prices. Decreased supply increases prices, which simultaneously causes
people to economize, and incentivizes new producers and new alternatives to enter the field.
to do with
That's absolutely true, but irrelevant to Hubbert's point, which was strictly a geological one :
The number of conventional deposits of light, sweet crude in the US are finite, and the search for them
has been more thorough than anywhere else in the world, and a documented decline in discoveries had to lead to a documented decline in production – of this
particular kind of oil.¶ Peak Oil is a major reason why, in spite of a rapidly cooling global economy, oil prices are still near historic highs, at over $95 a barrel. In part,
this is due to so-called "quantitative easing" – i.e., money-printing – but it's also clearly evidence of the essential correctness of Hubbert's theory, which accurately
predicted the peaking of light, sweet crude-oil production in the US circa 1970. It was not only technically daring, but occupationally and politically dangerous in the
'50s for Hubbert to forecast that the US, and then world production, would go into decline. And he was right. ¶ L:
Oil sands were not part of
his consideration .¶ Doug: Right. To my knowledge, he never said anything about oil sands, shale oil, oil
from coal, heavy oil from Venezuela, or deep ocean drilling off the coast of Brazil or other
places. He did not say, and Peak Oil does not mean, that the world is going to run out of
oil. All he said was that the lowest-hanging fruit was picked – the production of that particular kind would go into
permanent decline. Technology is constantly pushing both production costs lower and expanding
economic supply. But the simple fact that the low-hanging fruit is being depleted at an accelerating rate worldwide is simultaneously pushing costs up.
In fact, for many years – especially the '50s and '60s – people discovered a lot more oil than the world produced. But since 1980, the world has produced more oil than
people discovered. Petroleum geos believe there are about two trillion barrels of recoverable conventional oil, and we now appear to have produced a bit over half of
Unconventional oil supplies of all types could easily be ten times as great as the light,
sweet crude supplies we're depleting – but that's simply not relevant to Hubbert's theory,
which was a geological statement, not an economic one.¶ L: There's no real argument on this
point, right? US light, sweet crude production did peak, just as he foresaw.¶ Doug: That's correct. And he also predicted that in about 2005-2010, light, sweet
crude production would peak globally – and it has.¶ A lot of people pooh-pooh Peak Oil saying, quite correctly, that we'll never run out of oil.
That's true partly because of the huge amounts of unconventional oil available, partly because of constant
improvements in technology, and because of the basic economic arguments I mentioned earlier.
But again, these things are irrelevant to Hubbert's point and its documented correctness.¶ The take-away point from all this is
that the cost of oil production has likely found a new floor. Peak Oil doesn't mean we run out of oil – only that the cost of
it.¶
production, which now often runs about $40 per conventional barrel and up to $80 per unconventional barrel, all-in, is never going back down to where it was. Prices
can never go back to where they were either, because if they drop – or are forced by law – below the cost of production, there won't be any production. ¶ Even
considering the current economic downturn, which is in fact the Greater Depression beginning, the developing world, especially the Chinese and Indians, is going to
be using a lot more oil. It's just going to have to come more and more from higher-cost, unconventional sources. It's worth noting that oil consumption in the
developed world – North America, Europe, and Japan – is flat and has been for years. The growth in consumption – and there will be growth – is coming from China,
India, and the rest of the world, where 80% of the people are.
No peak oil – tech means hydrocarbons can be synthesized
Doug Casey and Louis James 8/29/12 (Dough Casey: highly respected author, publisher and
professional investor who graduated from Georgetown University in 1968, Louis James: editor
of the international speculator, “Doug Casey on Peak Oil”
http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/doug-casey-peakoil?quicktabs_casey_stock_simple_tabs=second)
L:
Is there really no chance of ever running out? Even the unconventional stuff must be finite…¶ Doug: No – or
is really a simple chemical. It's just carbon,
hydrogen, and oxygen, all of which are common and abundant on our planet. We can make oil in
the lab now; and at high-enough prices, it would be economic to make oil products in chemical plants,
out of these three basic elements. If we're right about nanotechnology, the cost of
synthesizing gasoline and almost any molecules you can think of will drop to trivial levels –
with no waste or byproducts.¶ L: If we ever get cheap, programmable assemblers…¶ Doug: Even without that, they – in
particular Craig Venter, who is also responsible for huge breakthroughs in sequencing the human genome – are already
rather, it's an academic point. As a matter of basic science, oil
working on algae that make oil. There are lots of technological fixes for this. It simply makes
no sense to worry about running out of oil in particular or fuel in general. It's not going to happen .
AT Countries Are Running Out/No Peak Oil
No peak oil – still massive amounts of conventional oil – unconventional shift
coming now also solves
Leonardo Maugeri June 2012 (“Oil: The Next Revolution¶ THE UNPRECEDENTED
UPSURGE OF OIL PRODUCTION ¶ CAPACITY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE
WORLD” The Geopolitics of Energy Project at The Harvard Kennedy Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Oil%20The%20Next%20Revolution.pdf)
Oil is not in short supply . From a purely
physical point of view, there are huge volumes ¶ of conventional and unconventional oils still
to be developed, with no “peak-oil” in sight . ¶ The full deployment of the world’s oil potential depends only on price,
Whatever the belief, the most important messages of this paper are as follows:¶ •
technology, and ¶ political factors. More than 80 percent of the additional production under development ¶ globally appears to be profitable with a
price of oil higher than $70 per barrel.¶ • Other things being equal, any significant setback to additional production in Iraq, the ¶ United States,
and Canada would have a negative impact on the global oil market, given ¶ their potential for new production by the year 2020. However, also a
significant setback ¶ of traditional big producers such as Saudi Arabia or Russia could have the same effect,proving once again that the oil market
is global and none of its pieces (e.g., countries) can ¶ be insulated from the other.¶ • The
shale/tight oil boom in the United
States is not a temporary bubble, but the most ¶ important revolution in the oil sector in
decades. It will probably trigger worldwide ¶ emulation , although the U.S. boom is difficult to be replicated
given the unique features ¶ of the U.S. oil (and gas) arena. Whatever the timing, emulation over the next decades
¶ might bear surprising results, given the fact that most shale/tight oil resources in the ¶
world are still unknown and untapped. China appears to be the first country to follow the ¶ U.S. example. Moreover, the
extension of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing ¶ combined to conventional oil
fields might dramatically increase world’s oil production ¶ and revive mature, declining
oilfields.¶ • In the aggregate, conventional oil production is also growing throughout the world, ¶ although
some areas (the North Sea, face an apparently irreversible decline of the ¶ production capacity. In most traditional producing countries, old
oilfields go through a ¶ production revival thanks to better techniques and knowledge, or
advanced exploration ¶ and production technologies, so far used only in the U.S. and in the North Sea . Huge ¶ parts of the world
are still relatively unexplored for conventional oil (for example, the ¶ Arctic Sea or most of sub-Saharan Africa).
Global oil output is massively increasing and will continue to do so – new
shale, investment, exploration – their authors are biased and ignorant
Leonardo Maugeri June 2012 (“Oil: The Next Revolution¶ THE UNPRECEDENTED
UPSURGE OF OIL PRODUCTION ¶ CAPACITY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE
WORLD” The Geopolitics of Energy Project at The Harvard Kennedy Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Oil%20The%20Next%20Revolution.pdf)
a big wave of oil production is mounting worldwide
Quite unnoticed,
, driven by high oil prices, ¶ booming investments,
private companies’ desperate need to restore their reserve, and the ¶ misguided but still prevalent perception that oil must become a rare commodity. The year
2012 ¶ will likely set a new historic record , with more than $600 billion to be spent worldwide in oil and ¶ gas exploration and production.
¶ For the first time, new areas of the world – from sub-equatorial Africa to Asia and Latin America ¶ – are
being targeted for mass exploration, and unveiling the potential for significant conventional ¶ oil
production over the next years. ¶ Furthermore the combination of high oil prices, advanced technologies that were
and restricted access to conventional oil resources in the major oil-producing ¶
countries is pushing private oil companies to explore and develop unconventional oils on a ¶
broader scale. This effort is concentrated in Canada, the United States, Venezuela, and
Brazil.¶ The U.S. shale/tight oil appears to be a potential “ paradigm-shift” for the entire world of ¶
once ¶ uneconomical,
unconventional oils.¶ The unexpected and rapid increase of oil production from the forerunner of shale/tight oil (the ¶ Bakken Shale formation in North Dakota) is
production has grown from a few ¶ barrels in 2006 to more than 530,000 barrels in
December 2011. ¶ 1This development seems ¶ consistent with the best study ever conducted on
the geological features and potential productivity ¶ of Bakken (Price, 1999), which estimated the maximum Original
Oil in Place of the whole ¶ formation at more than 500 billion barrels, with a probable recovery rate of about 50 percent. If ¶ confirmed, those figures would
make Bakken a “ game-changer” of the oil business, and one of ¶ the largest oil basins ever discovered. And Bakken
is only one out of more than twenty shale/tight ¶ oil formations in the U.S., that so far have been virtually
untouched.¶ While opinion-makers, decision-makers, the academy, and the financial market
seem to be caught ¶ up in the “peak-oil” mantra and an excessive enthusiasm for renewable energy alternatives to oil, ¶ oil
prices and technologies are supporting a quiet revolution throughout the oil world. If this “oil ¶
astonishing:
revolution” is true, it may change the way most people think about energy and geopolitics. This ¶ paper examines the extent of this revolution.
Oil output will increase over the next decade – new tech, reservoir growth,
slower depeletion rate
Leonardo Maugeri June 2012 (“Oil: The Next Revolution¶ THE UNPRECEDENTED
UPSURGE OF OIL PRODUCTION ¶ CAPACITY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE
WORLD” The Geopolitics of Energy Project at The Harvard Kennedy Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Oil%20The%20Next%20Revolution.pdf)
4. ADDING NEW PRODUCTION TO OLD¶ In
addition to the oil coming from new projects, most
currently producing countries enjoy a steady ¶ supply from their active fields, either due to
new technology or better reservoir understanding and ¶ management. Consequently, the world’s
supply capacity by 2020 will also rely upon the resilient ¶ production of many “old”
oilfields, those that have already reached or surpassed their peak ¶ production, but whose decline is slower than
expected.¶ When we balance depletion rates and reserve growth on a country-by-country basis, the decline ¶ profiles of older production
appear less pronounced than generally expected. As noted in Section 2, ¶ the only exceptions to this pattern are Norway, the UK, Mexico, and
Iran. Among other traditional ¶ producers with more than 200,000 barrels per day of production capacity (which together supply 98 ¶ percent of
current oil production), there is no country that seems bound to post a net loss of ¶ production.¶ Adding
old and new production and adjusting for each single country’s depletion rate and reserve ¶ growth, I drew up a possible evolution of the world’s
oil production capacity (crude oil and NGLs) ¶ by 2020. Preliminary
results of my analysis point to a strong
increase in world’s oil production capacity ¶ from about 93 mbd in December 2011 to 110.6
mbd in 2020, higher than the increase of each ¶ decade since 1980 (See Table 2). As to the composition of
this increase, the growth in NGL growth ¶ exceeds that of crude oil, because of increased production of liquids from natural gas. ¶ Many
variables could influence my findings, and I will address them in Section 10. However, until ¶ 2020, the
variables that are likely to attenuate an increase in production have a higher probability of
¶ occurring than the variables that could accelerate it. ¶ In particular, although I significantly decreased the
additional unrestricted production , I consider it ¶ unlikely that my revised figures could turn out to be higher; rather, the opposite is possible, ¶
because of projects delays, regulatory decisions, lower than expected investments, and political ¶ crises.¶ In any case, the
single most
important issue that emerges from my analysis is that, from a purely ¶ physical and
technical point of view, oil supply and capacity are not in any danger . On the ¶ contrary,
they could significantly exceed world consumption needs and even lead to a phase of oil ¶
overproduction if oil demand does not exceed a compounded rate of growth of 1.6 percent each ¶ year to 2020.
Even if demand surges we won’t run out – tech, lower overall consumption,
efficiency, their ev is pessimistic
Leonardo Maugeri June 2012 (“Oil: The Next Revolution¶ THE UNPRECEDENTED
UPSURGE OF OIL PRODUCTION ¶ CAPACITY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE
WORLD” The Geopolitics of Energy Project at The Harvard Kennedy Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Oil%20The%20Next%20Revolution.pdf)
Of course, it
is possible that sometime in this decade a resurgence of demand could occur, but it
is ¶ difficult to imagine that the combined average growth of oil demand to 2020 could
exceed 1.6 ¶ percent – a percentage that would be above the last two decade-long average gain – because of five ¶
factors: ¶ • Technology and energy efficiency have consistently reduced the oil input for each unit of ¶ GDP. ¶ • Each
prolonged period of expensive oil (like the one we have experienced so far since the ¶ beginning of the 2000s) led to an
increase in efficiency (due to specific legislation and ¶ improved technology), that will reduce the specific
consumption of oil for each dollar of ¶ wealth created.¶ • The statistics of future demographic trends always seem to
feature sustained growth. In ¶ reality, developed countries have fewer children and a lower specific
consumption of ¶ energy for each unit of wealth created, because they can take advantage of new technology ¶ and
more efficient energy systems. In their turn, developing countries could utilize those ¶ technologies and systems
to lower the growth of their energy demand.¶ In other words, we are living in a transformational
age where energy efficiency legislation, climate ¶ change policies, technological advance,
and the dissemination of energy alternatives will reduce ¶ the impact of oil in global
economies. ¶ Partly reflecting these trends, the IEA long-term forecasts to 2030 entail a combined average ¶ growth of oil demand of about
1 percent, split between a higher increase by 2020 and a slower ¶ measure of growth from 2021 on. I simply tend to believe that demand will
grow at a slower pace ¶ in this decade too.¶ Whatever the case, there is a hiatus between the global perception of oil demand growth, the ¶
alarming vision of an insatiable demand for oil promoted by mainstream media, and its effective ¶ growth.
Majority of large oil producers can remain stable or increase output
Leonardo Maugeri June 2012 (“Oil: The Next Revolution¶ THE UNPRECEDENTED
UPSURGE OF OIL PRODUCTION ¶ CAPACITY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE
WORLD” The Geopolitics of Energy Project at The Harvard Kennedy Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Oil%20The%20Next%20Revolution.pdf)
Only four of the current big oil suppliers (more than 1 mbd of production capacity) face a net ¶ reduction of
their production capacity by 2020: Norway, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and Iran. ¶ For the latter two, the
loss of production is primarily due to political factors. All other producers ¶ are capable of
increasing or preserving their production capacity. In fact, by balancing depletion ¶ rates and
reserve growth on a country-by-country basis, decline profiles of already producing ¶
oilfields appear less pronounced than assessed by most experts, being no higher than 2 to 3
¶ percent on a yearly basis.
Field by field data proves massive oil output and reserves coming now
Leonardo Maugeri June 2012 (“Oil: The Next Revolution¶ THE UNPRECEDENTED
UPSURGE OF OIL PRODUCTION ¶ CAPACITY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE
WORLD” The Geopolitics of Energy Project at The Harvard Kennedy Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Oil%20The%20Next%20Revolution.pdf)
My field-by-field analysis suggests that worldwide, an additional unrestricted supply of
slightly ¶ less than 50 mbd is under development or will be developed by 2020. Eleven
countries show a ¶ potential outflow of new production of about 40.5 mbd, or about 80 percent of the
total. After ¶ adjusting the world’s additional unrestricted production for taking into account risk-factors, the ¶ additional adjusted
supply comes to 28.6 mbd , or 22.5 mbd for the first eleven countries – as ¶ shown in Figure 3 (more extensive
data are shown in Table 3, Section 4).¶ These numbers carry at least two important messages:They represent the largest
potential addition to the world’s oil supply capacity since the ¶ 1980s. ¶ • They point to a tectonic shift in
the oil geography and geopolitics, by making the Western ¶ Hemisphere the fastest growing oil-producing region in the world, with the United
States ¶ and Canada combined outpacing any other country.
The US, Canada, Iraq, and Brazil are about to explode output
Leonardo Maugeri June 2012 (“Oil: The Next Revolution¶ THE UNPRECEDENTED
UPSURGE OF OIL PRODUCTION ¶ CAPACITY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE
WORLD” The Geopolitics of Energy Project at The Harvard Kennedy Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Oil%20The%20Next%20Revolution.pdf)
After considering risk-factors, depletion pattern and reserve growth, four countries show
the ¶ highest potential in terms of effective production capacity growth: they are, in order, Iraq, the ¶
U.S., Canada, and Brazil. This is a novelty, because three out of four of these countries are part of ¶ the western hemisphere, and
one only – Iraq – belongs to the traditional center of gravity of the ¶ oil world, the Persian Gulf.¶ – such as U.S. shale/tight oils,
Canadian tar sands, Venezuela’s extra-heavy oils, and ¶ Brazil’s pre-salt oils. ¶ The most surprising
factor of the global picture, however, is the explosion of the U.S. oil output.¶ Thanks to the technological
revolution brought about by the combined use of horizontal drilling ¶ and hydraulic
fracturing, the U.S. is now exploiting its huge and virtually untouched shale and ¶ tight oil
fields, whose production – although still in its infancy – is already skyrocketing in North ¶ Dakota and Texas.
Predictions of oil output decline are empirically false – doesn’t assume new
tech and reservoir growth
Leonardo Maugeri June 2012 (“Oil: The Next Revolution¶ THE UNPRECEDENTED
UPSURGE OF OIL PRODUCTION ¶ CAPACITY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE
WORLD” The Geopolitics of Energy Project at The Harvard Kennedy Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Oil%20The%20Next%20Revolution.pdf)
Throughout recent history, there
is empirical evidence of depletion overestimation. From 2000 on, ¶ for
example, crude oil depletion rates gauged by most forecasters have ranged between 6 and 10 ¶
percent: yet even the lower end of this range would involve the almost complete loss of the world’s ¶
“old” production in 10 years (2000 crude production capacity = about 70 mbd). By converse, crude ¶ oil
production capacity in 2010 was more than 80 mbd. To make up for that figure, a new ¶ production of
80 mbd or so would have come on-stream over that decade. This is clearly untrue: in ¶ 2010, 70
percent of crude oil production came from oilfields that have been producing oil for ¶
decades.
AT Saudi Arabia Running Out of Oil
Saudi Arabia still has huge amounts of untapped oil – their ev doesn’t assume
enhanced recovery
Leonardo Maugeri June 2012 (“Oil: The Next Revolution¶ THE UNPRECEDENTED
UPSURGE OF OIL PRODUCTION ¶ CAPACITY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE
WORLD” The Geopolitics of Energy Project at The Harvard Kennedy Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Oil%20The%20Next%20Revolution.pdf)
Even the most oil-rich country in the world, Saudi
Arabia, still has much potential to exploit. ¶ Despite a flurry
of recent doubts about the actual size of its reserves (a renewed attempt to ¶ discredit the country’s role as the
world’s Central Bank for oil), the Kingdom will probably ¶ continue to defy skeptics for decades to come .
Currently, its 260 billion barrels of proven ¶ reserves, a fifth of the world’s total, represent nearly one-third
of the original oil in place ¶ estimated by the Saudi state oil giant, Saudi Aramco;¶ 10¶ yet the company has pointed out that its
¶ measurement does not take into account potential future advantages of enhanced recovery
¶ techniques.
No depletion until 2020 – after that tech boosts reservoir growth
Leonardo Maugeri June 2012 (“Oil: The Next Revolution¶ THE UNPRECEDENTED
UPSURGE OF OIL PRODUCTION ¶ CAPACITY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE
WORLD” The Geopolitics of Energy Project at The Harvard Kennedy Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Oil%20The%20Next%20Revolution.pdf)
Despite the recurring doubts about Saudi Arabia’s capacity to maintain its ¶
production levels, the Kingdom has always made short work of its critics. In 2006, just as ¶ Matthew
Simmons’ book Twilight in the Desert suggested that the country had already surpassed ¶ its own peak
production capacity, Saudi Arabia announced a plan to increase its production ¶ capacity
by about 2.5 mbd in four years, an amount equal to the current oil supply of Mexico and ¶ Venezuela combined?. The plan was
carried out smoothly and now the Saudi production capacity ¶ (the world’s largest) stands at 12.3
mbd (see note at pp. 10-11). An additional plan was discussed ¶ to raise this level to 15 mbd, but the steady growth of the global
supply capacity has convinced ¶ the Saudi government to limit future expansion both for
fear of creating excess spare capacity, ¶ and—above all—to allocate more spending on social programs and job creation in sectors
other¶ than oil, the key preoccupation of the Saudi Monarchy. Consequently, the only project that is now ¶ under development
concerns the giant Manifa field, which is commence by 2015, adding 900,000 ¶ bd to the Saudi production
capacity. Given the progress of the project and the lack of hurdles in ¶ bringing it onstream as
planned, I did not apply any discount to this figure.¶ All other programs aim to preserve the
current production capacity of the Kingdom, through ¶ either new technologies, or better
reservoir management methods. In my view, these programs ¶ will allow the Kingdom to avoid
any significant depletion from currently producing fields until ¶ 2020. Significantly, Saudi
Aramco, the giant national oil company, stated that enhanced oil ¶ recovery technologies would not be
necessary to maintain current production levels before 2025.
Saudi Arabia.
AT Independence Solves ME Military Focus
Obama advisors say the aff doesn’t solve – energy won’t change the calculus
Chris Neiger 11/30/12 (writer for the motley fool, energy investment website with contributors
that usually are industry consultants, “3 Things That Won’t Change if the U.S. Goes Oil
Independent” http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/11/30/3-things-that-wont-change-ifthe-us-goes-oil-indep.aspx)
2. U.S.
foreign policy will still care about the Middle East¶ This year, about 18 million barrels of oil
pass through the Strait of Hormuz every day. By 2035, 25 million barrels of oil will pass through there every
day – 50% of the global oil trade. The area has been a historical place of tension , and with the current
U.S. and European sanctions on Iran, it's also an area Iran has threatened to close off completely. If there's a
blockage of oil coming out of the strait for a few months, it could cripple the economies of India, China, and Japan – a scenario that
could spawn a global recession.¶ The U.S. government still considers this region an
important political territory where energy's concerned , and having our own oil won't
change that . David L. Goldwyn, a former State Department coordinator for international
energy affairs in the Obama administration told The New York Times: "The rise in domestic
production will not diminish in any way the need for the U.S. to retain global reach,
particularly in the Middle East."
No withdrawal
Andrew Stevens 10/23/12 (cnn, internall cites Niall Ferguson who is a complete badass, “U.S. set for fracking bonanza, says historian Ferguson”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/23/business/america-shale-gas-ferguson-stevens/index.html)
And what
of U.S. engagement in the Middle East?¶ Ferguson says it would be naive to assume
that Washington would withdraw in any significant way from the region.¶ "Nobody is going
to step in and take the job of being global policeman in charge of Middle Eastern stability. I think everyone
would be nervous, if the Chinese suddenly volunteered to take that job on, which by the way they
are not going to do anytime soon," he said.
AT resource wars
Resource wars not going to happen – especially over oil
Tetrais 2012 (Bruno Tetrais – senior researcher at fellow foundation for Strategic Research, Summer 2012, The Washington
Quarterly, “The Demise of Ares: The End of War as we know it?”, http://csis.org/files/publication/twq12SummerTertrais.pdf)
Future resource wars are unlikely. There are fewer and fewer conquest wars. Between the Westphalia peace and the end of World
War II, nearly half of conflicts were fought over territory. Since the end of the Cold War, it has been less than 30 percent.61 The invasion of
Kuwaita nationwide bank robberymay go down in history as being the last great resource war. The
U.S.-led intervention of
1991 was partly driven by the need to maintain the free flow of oil, but not by the temptation to capture it. (Nor was
the 2003 war against Iraq motivated by oil.) As for the current tensions between the two Sudans over oil, they are the
remnants of a civil war and an offshoot of a botched secession process, not a desire to control new resources. China’s and India’s energy needs
are sometimes seen with apprehension: in light of growing oil and gas scarcity, is
there not a risk of military clashes over
the control of such resources? This seemingly consensual idea rests on two fallacies. One is that there
is such a thing as oil and gas scarcity, a notion challenged by many energy experts.62 As prices rise, previously untapped
reserves and non-conventional hydrocarbons become economically attractive. The other is that spilling blood is a
rational way to access resources. As shown by the work of historians and political scientists such as Quincy Wright, the
economic rationale for war has always been overstated. And because of globalization, it has become cheaper to buy
than to steal. We no longer live in the world of 1941, when fear of lacking oil and raw materials
was a key motivation for Japan’s decision to go to war. In an era of liberalizing trade, many natural resources are
fungible goods. (Here, Beijing behaves as any other actor: 90 percent of the oil its companies produce outside of China goes to the global market,
not to the domestic one.)63 There
may be clashes or conflicts in regions in maritime resource-rich areas such as the South China and
East China seas or the Mediterranean, but they will be driven by nationalist passions, not the desperate
hunger for hydrocarbons.
No resource wars
Salehyan 2007 – Idean Salehyan Professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas. “The New Myth About Climate
Change Corrupt, tyrannical governments—not changes in the Earth’s climate—will be to blame for the coming resource wars.”, Foreign
Policy.com, August 14, 2007 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2007/08/13/the_new_myth_about_climate_change)//JS
First, aside from a few anecdotes, there
is little systematic empirical evidence that resource scarcity and
changing environmental conditions lead to conflict. In fact , several studies have shown that an abundance of natural
resources is more likely to contribute to conflict. Moreover, even as the planet has warmed, the number of civil wars and
insurgencies has decreased dramatically. Data collected by researchers at Uppsala University and the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo
shows a steep decline in the number of armed conflicts around the world. Between 1989 and 2002, some 100 armed conflicts came to an end,
including the wars in Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Cambodia. If global warming causes conflict, we should not be witnessing this downward
trend. Furthermore,
if famine and drought led to the crisis in Darfur, why have scores of environmental
catastrophes failed to set off armed conflict elsewhere? For instance, the U.N. World Food
Programme warns that 5 million people in Malawi have been experiencing chronic food
shortages for several years. But famine-wracked Malawi has yet to experience a major civil war.
Similarly, the Asian tsunami in 2004 killed hundreds of thousands of people, generated millions of
environmental refugees, and led to severe shortages of shelter, food, clean water, and electricity.
Yet the tsunami, one of the most extreme catastrophes in recent history, did not lead to an
outbreak of resource wars. Clearly then, there is much more to armed conflict than resource scarcity and natural disasters.
Resource scarcity doesn’t lead to war
Bier 11 (David Bier – immigration policy expert, November 28th, 2011, “Steven Pinker: Resource Scarcity Doesn’t Cause Wars”, Global
Warming.org, http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/11/28/steven-pinker-resource-scarcity-doesnt-cause-wars/)//JS
Once again it seems to me that the appropriate response is “maybe, but maybe not.” Though climate change can cause plenty of misery… it will
not necessarily lead to armed conflict. The political
scientists who track war and peace, such as Halvard Buhaug, Idean
Salehyan, Ole Theisen, and Nils Gleditsch, are skeptical of the popular idea that people fight wars over scarce
resources. Hunger and resource shortages are tragically common in sub-Saharan countries such as
Malawi, Zambia, and Tanzania, but wars involving them are not. Hurricanes, floods, droughts, and tsunamis (such as the disastrous one
in the Indian Ocean in 2004) do not generally lead to conflict. The American dust bowl in the 1930s, to take another example,
caused plenty of deprivation but no civil war. And while temperatures have been rising steadily in Africa during the
past fifteen years, civil wars and war deaths have been falling. Pressures on access to land and water can certainly
cause local skirmishes, but a genuine war requires that hostile forces be organized and armed, and that depends
more on the influence of bad governments, closed economies, and militant ideologies than on the sheer
availability of land and water . Certainly any connection to terrorism is in the imagination of the terror warriors: terrorists tend
to be underemployed lower-middle-class men, not subsistence farmers. As for genocide, the Sudanese government finds it convenient to blame
violence in Darfur on desertification, distracting the world from its own role in tolerating or encouraging the ethnic cleansing. In a regression
analysis on armed conflicts from 1980 to 1992, Theisen found that conflict was more likely if a country was poor, populous, politically unstable,
and abundant in oil, but not if it had suffered from droughts, water shortages, or mild land degradation. (Severe land degradation did have a small
effect.) Reviewing analyses
that examined a large number (N) of countries rather than cherry-picking one or toe,
he concluded, “Those who foresee doom, because of the relationship between resource scarcity and violent internal
conflict, have very little support from the large-N literature.”
No risk of resource wars
Victor 2007 (David G. Victor – professor at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies and director of the
School’s new Laboratory on International Law and Regulation, The National Interest, 2007, “What Resource Wars?”
http://irps.ucsd.edu/dgvictor/publications/Faculty_Victor_Article_2007_What%20Resource%20Wars_The%20National%20Interest.pdf)
Rising energy prices and mounting concerns about environmental depletion have animated fears
that the world may be headed for a spate of "resource wars" - hot conflicts triggered by a struggle to grab valuable resources. Such fears come in many stripes, but the
threat industry has sounded the alarm bells especially loudly in three areas. First is the rise of China, which is poorly endowed with many of the resources it needs - such as oil, gas, timber and
most minerals - and has already "gone out" to the world with the goal of securing what it wants. Violent conflicts may follow as the country shunts others aside. A second potential path down
the road to resource wars starts with all the money now flowing into poorly governed but resource-rich countries. Money can fund civil wars and other hostilities, even leaking into the hands
of terrorists. And third is global climate change, which could multiply stresses on natural resources and trigger water wars, catalyze the spread of disease or bring about mass migrations.
resource wars are good material for
Hollywood screenwriters. They rarely occur in the real world. To be sure, resource money
can magnify and prolong some conflicts, but the root causes of those hostilities usually lie
elsewhere. Fixing them requires focusing on the underlying institutions that govern how resources are used and largely determine whether stress explodes into violence. When
conflicts do arise, the weak link isn't a dearth in resources but a dearth in governance . Feeding
the dragon Resource wars are largely back in vogue within the US threat industry because of
China's spectacular rise. Brazil, India, Malaysia and many others that used to sit on the periphery of the world economy are also arcing upward. This growth is fueling
Most of this is bunk, and nearly all of it has focused on the wrong lessons for policy. Classic
a surge in world demand for raw materials. Inevitably, these countries have looked overseas for what they need, which has animated fears of a coming clash with China and other growing powers
over access to natural resources. Within the next three years, China will be the world's largest consumer of energy. Yet, it's not just oil wells that are working harder to fuel China, so too are
chainsaws. Chinese net imports of timber nearly doubled from 2000 to 2005. The country also uses about one-third of the world's steel (around 360 million tons), or three times its 2000
consumption. Even in coal resources, in which China is famously well-endowed, China became a net importer in 2007. Across the board, the combination of low efficiency, rapid growth and an
emphasis on heavy industry - typical in the early stages of industrial growth - have combined to make the country a voracious consumer and polluter of natural resources. America, England and
nearly every other industrialized country went through a similar pattern, though with a human population that was much smaller than today's resource-hungry developing world
Resource scarcity will solve itself
Sharp 07 (Travis Sharp – fellow at Center for a New American Security – PhD. Student Princeton University – Woodrow Wilson school of
Public and International Affairs, The Center for Arms-Control and Non – proliferation, July – September 2007, “Resource Conflict in the 21st
Century”, http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/securityspending/articles/resource_conflict_twenty_first_century/)//JS
Scholars have developed two separate visions of resource depletion. The Cornucopian model
offers an optimistic approach to
dealing with non-renewable resources. Relying on the virtues of the free market, the Cornucopian model asserts
that , ceteris paribus, as resources become scarce and supply decreases, prices will increase and
prolong total depletion. In the time between initial price increases and total depletion, humans will make
technological advances that ameliorate the crisis . Essentially, the Cornucopian model is a prescription for
procrastination - we will wait until the situation is critical before we start working on solutions. The Malthusian model takes the opposite view of
resource depletion. Emerging from the writings of English economist Thomas Malthus, this theory suggests that population growth will place an
undue burden on resources and ultimately lead to a cataclysmic clash over scarce commodities. Advocates of the Malthusian worldview support
immediate action to prevent the apocalypse coming as a result of world resource depletion.
EXT - 2NC Victor
Sharing solves
Victor 2007 (David G. Victor – professor at the Graduate School of International Relations
and Pacific Studies and director of the School’s new Laboratory on International Law and
Regulation, The National Interest, 2007, “What Resource Wars?”
http://irps.ucsd.edu/dgvictor/publications/Faculty_Victor_Article_2007_What%20Resource%20
Wars_The%20National%20Interest.pdf)
While there are many reasons to fear global warming, the
risk that such dangers could cause violent conflict ranks
extremely low on the list because it is highly unlikely to materialize. Despite decades of warnings about water wars, what is striking is
that water wars don't happen - usually because countries that share water resources have a lot more at stake and armed conflict rarely fixes the
problem. Some analysts
have pointed to conflicts over resources, including water and valuable land, as a cause
in the Rwandan genocide, for example. Recently, the UN secretary-general suggested that climate change was already exacerbating the
conflicts in Sudan. But none of these supposed causal chains stay linked under close scrutiny - the
conflicts over resources are usually symptomatic of deeper failures in governance and other
primal forces for conflicts, such as ethnic tensions, income inequalities and other unsettled
grievances. Climate is just one of many factors that contribute to tension. The same is true for scenarios of climate refugees, where the
moniker "climate" conveniently obscures the deeper causal forces.
AT: Oil Wars
No resource wars – peak oil flawed
Mills No Date (Robin Mills – masters in Geological sciences, economics manager for Emirates National Oil Company, no date,
Articlebiz.com, “Debunking the Myth of Oil Crisis”, http://www.articlebiz.com/article/244365-1-debunking-the-myth-of-the-oil-crisis/)//JS
The opening years of the 21st century are marked by milestones in the world of oil: the war in Iraq, the Shell reserves downgrade, Hurricane
Katrina, and the breaking of the once unthinkable $100 per barrel barrier. Many have seized on these events as evidence that we are crossing the
threshold of 'peak oil'. Behind us, a century and a half of abundant, cheap oil that fuelled industrial civilization and brought unparalleled
wars over
dwindling resources, disastrous climate change, perhaps the collapse of modern society. But these ideas are based on
misconceptions, flawed reasoning, and excessive pessimism. The world has abundant oil
and gas for decades to come, geopolitical conflicts can be avoided by adroit policies, and we can
learn to use hydrocarbons without unacceptable environmental damage. We have been here before. In 1865, the economist
prosperity to a fortunate global minority. Ahead of us, permanent declines in oil production, scarce and unaffordable energy,
William Jevons warned that Britain’s global supremacy would shortly be ended by the exhaustion of its coal mines. The pioneering
conservationist Gifford Pinchot wrote in 1910 that "our supplies of iron ore, mineral oil and natural gas are being rapidly depleted, and many of
the great fields are already exhausted". There were further predictions of imminent oil decline from industry geologists in 1885, 1919 and 1956,
from Jimmy Carter in 1977, from the US government in 1980. A prominent
'peak oiler', Colin Campbell, claimed
in 1989 that oil output had peaked; another, Kenneth Deffeyes, put the peak date, rather precisely, at
December 16th 2005. The current high prices certainly seem to give some credibility to the idea that we are approaching some
fundamental limit of oil resources. But we should remember how we arrived at this situation, since the culprit is not constraints on oil in the
ground: it is the long 1986-98 period of low prices and under-investment. Low prices decimated the oil industry, while the rise of energy-hungry
new powers in Asia, combined with robust demand in the developed world and geopolitical upsets in major producers, stealthily ate up spare
production capacity. The inevitable result, perhaps amplified by ‘speculation’ and market nervousness, has been a so-far inexorable rise in the oil
price. This price rise is not driven, then, primarily by geology. But many commentators outside the energy business, and some within it, believe
high oil prices vindicate their often-repeated claims that 'peak oil' is imminent. Supporters of this
view point to the work of the American geologist M. King Hubbert, whose seminal 1956 paper prophesied a peak in US output by 1965-1970 (the
actual year was 1970), a success often taken to prove that oil depletion must follow 'Hubbert's Curve'. Yet when applied to other countries,
'Hubbert's Curve' and its variants are at best approximately right, but frequently wildly wrong. Predictions of the date of 'peak oil' require some
Believers in imminent depletion
state that global reserves, particularly in the OPEC countries, are heavily over-stated, that exploration
success is falling well short of replacing production, and that technology does not unlock
significant new oil. These assumptions imply that we are on the cusp of producing half of
our ultimate total of oil. Hubbert’s method therefore predicts imminent decline.
estimate of the amount of oil reserves known today, and the quantity to be found in the future.
AT China Resource Wars
China oil wars won’t happen
Victor 07 (David G. Victor – professor at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies and director of the School’s
new Laboratory on International Law and Regulation, The National Interest, 2007, “What Resource Wars?”
http://irps.ucsd.edu/dgvictor/publications/Faculty_Victor_Article_2007_What%20Resource%20Wars_The%20National%20Interest.pdf)
Among the needed resources, oil has been the most visible. Indeed, Chinese state-owned oil companies are dotting
Africa, Central Asia and the Persian Gulf with projects aimed to export oil back home. The overseas arm of India's state oil company has
followed a similar strategy-unable to compete head-to-head with the major Western companies, it focuses instead on areas where human- rights
abuses and bad governance keep be major oil companies at bay and where India's foreign policy can open doors. To a lesser extent, Malaysia
engages in the same behavior. The American threat industry rarely sounds the alarm over Indian and Malaysian
efforts, though, in part because those firms have less capital so splash around and mainly because their stories just don't compare with fear of the
rising dragon. These efforts to lock up resources by going out fit well with the standard narrative for resource wars--a zero-sum struggle for vital
supplies. But ? To be sure, the
struggle over resources has yielded a wide array of commercial
conflicts as companies duel for con- tracts and ownership. State-owned China National Offshore Oil
Corporation's (CNOOC) failed bid to acquire U.S.-based Unocal-and with it Unocals valuable oil and gas supplies in Asia-is a recent example.
But that is hardly unique to re-
sources-similar conflicts with tinges of national security arise in the
control over ports, aircraft engines, databases laden with private information and a growing array of advanced
technologies for which civilian and military functions are hard to distinguish. These disputes win and lose some
friendships and contracts, but they do not unleash violence. Most importantly, China's going-out
strategy is unlikely to spur resource wars because it simply does not work, a lesson the Chinese are
learning. Oil is a fungible commodity, and when it is sourced far from China it is better to sell
(and buy) the oil on the world market. The best estimates suggest that only about one-tenth of the oil produced overseas by Chinese investments
(so-called "equity oil") actually makes it back to the country. So, thus far, the largest beneficiaries of China's strategy are the rest of the world’s
oil consumers-first and foremost the Unit- ed States-who gain because China subsidize: production. . Until recently, the strategy of going out for
oil looked like a good bet for China's interests. But, despite threat-industry fear-mongering, we need not worry that it will continue over the long
term because Chinese
enterprises are already poised to follow a new strategy that is less likely to
engender conflict. The past strategy rested on a trifecta of passing fads. One fad was the special access that Chinese state enterprises
had to cheap capital from the government and by retaining their earnings. The ability to direct that spigot to political projects is diminishing as
China engages in reforms that expose state enterprises to the real cost of capital and as the Chinese state and its enterprises look for better
commercial returns on the money they invest. Second, nearly all the equity-oil investments overseas have occurred since the late 1990s, as prices
have been rising. Each has looked much smarter than the last because of the surging value of oil in the ground. But that trend is slowing in many
places because the cost of discovering and developing oil resources is rising.
No south china oil conflict
Reuters 6/20 (Reuters, June 20, 2014, “China urges peaceful development of seas, says conflict leads to “disaster””,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/21/us-southchinasea-china-idUSKBN0EW07L20140621) //JS
China, involved in a growing dispute with its neighbors over the energy-rich South China Sea, wants to promote peaceful
development of the oceans, Premier Li Keqiang said, warning conflicts in the past had only brought
"disaster for humanity". China claims almost the entire ocean, rejecting rival claims to parts , the Philippines, Taiwan,
Malaysia and Brunei in one of Asia's most intractable disputes and a possible flashpoint. It also has a long-running dispute with Japan in
the East China Sea. "China
will unswervingly follow the path of peaceful development and firmly
oppose any act of hegemony in maritime affairs," Li said at a maritime summit in Greece on Friday in comments
carried by China's Foreign Ministry website on Saturday. "Developing the oceans through cooperation has
helped many nations flourish, while resorting to conflict to fight over the sea has only
brought disaster for humanity." Concern over China's motives has risen in the region after China sent four more oil rigs into
the South China Sea, less than two months after it positioned a giant drilling platform inwaters claimed by Vietnam around the Paracel
Islands. The lack of any breakthrough in the dispute suggests China and Vietnam are far from resolving one of the worst breakdowns in
relations since they fought a brief war in 1979. Among the obstacles is Beijing's demand for compensation for anti-Chinese riots that
erupted in Vietnam after the drilling platform was deployed at the beginning of May. Speaking at a forum in Beijing on Saturday,
China's top diplomat, State Councillor Yang Jiechi, who visited Vietnam this week to discuss the rig dispute, said
China had both the patience and sincerity to push for talks to resolve such spats.
China will use peaceful means – no conflict scenario
Pennington 11 (James Pennington – University of Leeds, How Peaceful is China's Rise? The Use of Soft and Hard Power in China's
Energy Security Strategy in Central Asia” http://www.polis.leeds.ac.uk/assets/files/students/student-journal/ug-winter-11/jamespennington.pdf)//JS
This paper will argue that, since becoming an energy importing country, China
has ¶ concentrated vast reserves on
enhancing its soft power in energy exporting nations, in order ¶ to build an ESC, using a variety of means with notable
success. Simultaneously, ¶ securitisation of the issue by hardliners in the Chinese ruling elite has lead to a build-up
of ¶ hard power reserves intended to maintain energy security, which, as yet, are incapable of
¶ impacting global security, but are steadily increasing. This analysis will first be approached ¶ from a general perspective,
constructing a model of the various soft and hard elements of ¶ China's global ESS with reference to securitisation and energy security
communities. This ¶ will then be applied to an empirical case study in Central Asia, with special reference to ¶ Kazakhstan and
Turkmenistan. The argument will conclude that both the energy realist's and ¶ energy liberal's predictions relating to soft and hard
power in China's energy security are too ¶ simplistic, and a more balanced assessment will be put forward using a constructivist ¶
analytical framework. This will state that due to securitisation
of energy in China, hard power ¶ resources
are of increasing importance to China's ESS, but that currently, due to its goal of ¶ building ESCs with exporting
countries, soft power plays a more developed and important ¶ role in China's ESS. What is more,
many facets of this soft power strategy, such as the access ¶ it gains to resources, economic integration and involvement in
international institutions, also¶ negate the use of hard power, further integrating China into the international system.
AT Terrorists Will Target Energy Supply
No impact to energy terror – reserves and diffuse production
Matthew Hulbert 11/26/12 (Lead Analyst for European Energy Review and consultant to
numerous governments and institutional investors, most recently as Senior Research Fellow at
Clingendael International Energy Programme, “A Terrorist Guide To Energy Carnage”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewhulbert/2012/11/16/a-terrorist-guide-to-energy-carnage/)
Well, the bad news for you guys is that you’re
against the clock. This is a very hard time to be a terrorist
with global ambitions in the energy world. We’ve added 200bn barrels of potential reserves oil over
the past few years from unconventional plays, with gas reserves believed to be up to 28, 0000 trillion cubic feet. Obviously what’s in the ground
and what’s produced are two very different things, but if
oil and gas production increases, markets will not just
become far more fungible and deep, but coming from every point on the compass. Resources are no longer the preserve
of the Gulf, but span Latin America, East Africa, Australasia, Russia, the Caspian and especially North America. You’ll have no clue
what you should be blowing up, and more’s the point, it won’t have much impact if you do . You’ll
merely highlight AQ’s increasing structural irrelevance to the energy world.
No impact and attacks inevitable
Matthew Hulbert 11/26/12 (Lead Analyst for European Energy Review and consultant to
numerous governments and institutional investors, most recently as Senior Research Fellow at
Clingendael International Energy Programme, “A Terrorist Guide To Energy Carnage”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewhulbert/2012/11/16/a-terrorist-guide-to-energy-carnage/)
If that’s the threat, then fear not NATO, the actual risk of it happening isn’t nearly so grim.
Obviously if AQ managed to pull any of this off the impacts would be profound, but capabilities appear down, and
imagination, limited. Saudi Arabia and Qatar both take hydrocarbon security very seriously (at
least against perceived external threats), and the U.S. 5th fleet maintains a strong presence off Bahrain. European
naval deployments over in the Gulf of Aden could also quickly shift geographical focus if needed. Do keep tabs on it, but you
need to think more broadly about what role you can play on day to day terrorist problems. Global jihad is the flashy end of the business, but local
insurgency gripes tend to be the standard fayre.¶ Now, don’t get us wrong, the ‘energy
security experts’ who think every
bomb and minor attack on pipelines in strange places matter couldn’t be more wrong. The
market has already priced it in – be it in Yemen, Iraq – or Sudan. Sure, ‘stranded’ energy isn’t free, but
neither is security provision. Everything you do should be based on cost-benefit analysis, accepting you can’t lock down every piece of energy
infrastructure (not even close), and accept that the commercial energy world is exclusively predicated on a risk vs. reward basis. That means
being bright – very bright – about locating where insurgency strikes actually matter for market and
political dynamics to be of genuine use.