8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

1/23

OCS Drill

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

2/23

The DrillThere is a 1AC in here that you will be using for this drill. You should get familiarwith the evidence so you will be able to give a 2AC (or 2NC if you happen to be neg).

The 1NC is complete as well so you will need to read through that as well.

Then you will have a mini-debate. These will be 1v1 debates where one person is affand will be required to give a 2AC and 1AR if time permits.

The person who is neg will have to cross-x the 2AC and then give a 2NC extendingthe case arguments of your choice on each page.

Times for the Debate

2AC 3:00

2AC Cross-x 3:00

2NC 5:00

1AR 2:00

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

3/23

1AC

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

4/23

Contention One: Inherency

Oil search green lit in the Atlantic OCS, but 2017 moratorium prevents any drillingMichael Wines 2/27/ 14 U.S. Moves Toward Atlantic Oil Exploration, Stirring Debate Over Sea Life,http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/us/us-moves-toward-atlantic-oil-exploration-stirring-debate-over-sea-life.html?_r=1

The Interior Department opened the door on Thursday to the first searches in decades for oil and gas off the Atlanticcoast , recommending that undersea seismic surveys proceed, though with a host of safeguards to shield marine life from much of their impact. The recommendation is likely to be adopted after a period of public comment and over objections by environmental activists whosay it will be ruinous for the climate and sea life alike. The American Petroleum Institute called the recommendation acritical step toward bolstering the nations energy security, predicting that oil and gas production in the region could create280,000 new jobs and generate $195 billion in private investment. Activists were livid. Allowing exploration could be a death sentence formany marine mammals, and is needlessly turning the Atlantic Ocean into a blast zone, Jacqueline Savitz, a vice president at the conservationgroup Oceana, said in a statement on Thursday. Oceana and other groups have campaigned for months against the Atlantic survey plans, citingInterior Department calculations that the intense noise of seismic exploration could kill and injure thousands of dolphins and whales. But whilethe assessment released on Thursday repeats those estimates, it also largely dismisses them, stating that they employ multiple worst-case

scenarios and ignore measures by humans and the mammals themselves to avoid harm. Many marine scientists say the estimates of death andinjury are at best seriously inflated. Theres no argument that some of these sounds can harm animals, but its blown out of proportion, Arthur N. Popper, who heads the University of Marylands laboratory of aquatic bioacoustics, said in an interview. Its the Flipper syndrome, or FreeWilly. How the noise affects sea mammals behavior in the long term an issue about which little is known is a much greater concern,he said. A formal decision to proceed with surveys would reopen a swath off the East Coast stretching from Delaware to Cape Canaveral, Fla.,that has been closed to petroleum exploration since the early 1980s. Actual drilling of test wells could not begin until a WhiteHouse ban on production in the Atlantic expires in 2017, and even then, only after the government agreesto lease ocean tracts to oil companies, an issue officials have barely begun to study. The petroleum industry has sunk 51 wells offthe East Coast none of them successful enough to begin production in decades past. But the Interior Department said in 2011 that 3.3

billion barrels of recoverable oil and 312 trillion cubic feet of natural gas could lie in the exploration area, and nine companies have alreadyapplied for permits to begin surveys. President Obama committed in 2010 to allowing oil and gas surveys along thesame stretch of the Atlantic , and the government had planned to lease tracts off the Virginia coast for exploration in 2011. But those

plans collapsed after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster in April 2010, and the government later

banned activity in the area until 2017.

U.S. production levels slowing no OCS developmentHillegeist 13 President & COO @ Quest Offshore (Paul, The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S.Access to Offsho re Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic, December, http://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-

Natura....pdf)

Total U.S. oil and natural gas production has increased in recent years . However, this was due mostly tor ising production f rom shale gas and tight oil formations . The dramatic increase in o nshore unconventional oil andnatural development has been a major contributor in increasing U . S . energy security as well as a significant contributor to the economicrecovery in a number of U.S. states. U.S. offshore oil and natural gas production , predominately from the Gulf of Mexic o , has

recently declined. Currently, there is no oil or natural gas production from the Atlantic OCS. (Figure

6)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/us/us-moves-toward-atlantic-oil-exploration-stirring-debate-over-sea-life.html?_r=1http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/us/us-moves-toward-atlantic-oil-exploration-stirring-debate-over-sea-life.html?_r=1http://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-Natura....pdfhttp://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-Natura....pdfhttp://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-Natura....pdfhttp://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-Natura....pdfhttp://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-Natura....pdfhttp://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-Natura....pdfhttp://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-Natura....pdfhttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/us/us-moves-toward-atlantic-oil-exploration-stirring-debate-over-sea-life.html?_r=1http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/us/us-moves-toward-atlantic-oil-exploration-stirring-debate-over-sea-life.html?_r=1

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

5/23

Contention Two: Economy

Plan is key to economic growth we will isolate 4 internal links

FIRST unemployment

Despite a small drop in the unemployment level the pace is NOT fast enough torelieve the jobless backlog

Nelson D. Schwartz April 4 2014 (1995 graduate of the University of Chicago - studied Russian andAmerican history, covers economy and economics for the The New York Times) Hiring Rises, but

Number of Jobless Stays High, The New York Times,http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/business/economy/jobs-report-for-march.html?_r=0

Employers are hiring at a more aggressive pace again after a winter cold snap, but the pace of job gains is only slowlymaking up for years of lost ground in the labor market . Nearly five years after the end of the Great Recession ,the total number of private sector jobs is finally back to where it was as the downturn began in early 2008 , the Labor Department reported on

Friday. But that level is still far below what is needed to fully accommodate the millions of people who have joined the work force since then , or relieve the backlog of jobless workers anytime soon . Still, theaddition of 192,000 jobs last month, all from private employers, represented an uptick from the anemic rate of job creation recorded at the turn ofthe year. That encouraged optimists, who foresee a slight strengthening as the wintry weather in many parts of the country in late 2013 and early2014 yields to a more inviting spring. In addition, while the unemployment rate remained flat at 6.7 percent in March, an increase in the numberof Americans looking for work also offered up some modest hope that better times could lie ahead in 2014. So too did an upward revision in thenumber of jobs that government statisticians estimate were added in January and February. Weve gotten back to where we were before thewinter slowdown in terms of job creation as well as where we expect to be going forward , said Dean Maki, chief United States economist atBarclays. This gets us back on trend. Statistically speaking, the estimated rate of job creation in March was nearly identical to the averagemonthly gain of 183,000 jobs recorded over the last 12 months. The latest numbers are likely to be revised significantly as moreinformation flows into the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even so, they suggest that the economy is not achieving what economistscall escape velocity, something that policy makers have long sought. Neither is it falling into the rut some pessimists feared was developingearly in 2014. Growth-wise, in terms of the economy and the labor market, we think 2014 will look a lot like 2013 and 2012 did, said GuyBerger, United States economist at RBS Securities. In all likelihood, we will see average monthly job gains of a little north of 200,000 thisyear. While that pace of job creation would gradually bring the unemployment rate down , it would takeuntil nearly the end of the decade before the labor market returned to the level of robustness that prevailed inthe mid-2000s, let alone the 1990s . Experts with the Hamilton Project, a research group that is associated with the BrookingsInstitution in Washington, estimate that at the current rate it will take until early 2019 for the economy toaccommodate new entrants into the work force and get back to where it was before the recession . While the LaborDepartment data showed that private payrolls in March stood at 116.09 million compared with 115.98 million as the recession began inJanuary 2008 the size of the American work force has jumped by more than two million over the same period. Moreover, even as

people joined the work force , millions of other Americans dropped out of it entirely in the last five years, havinggiven up the search for work , and the question of just how many of them will ever return to full- or even part-time jobs is now beinghotly debated in economic circles. The participation rate did edge up in March as more workers returned to the labor market amid increasedopenings, a central reason the unemployment rate remained flat even as a survey of households suggested that nearly half a million people foundnew jobs last month.

The return of Americans to the job huntnot only

underscores just

how much slack remains in the

economy but also means that the unemployment rate is unlikely to keep falling as sharply as it has in the last two years.Thats because people who are again looking for work are counted as unemploye d, while those who have given up and dropped out of the laborforce are not.

Slow employment rates makes the US economy vulnerable to outside shocks domestic oil production ONLY way to provide enough jobs at a fast paceMorici 12 (Peter, economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland,8/3/12, Unemployment Rises, Hundreds of Thousands Quit Looking Fox)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/business/economy/jobs-report-for-march.html?_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/business/economy/jobs-report-for-march.html?_r=0

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

6/23

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/08/03/unemployment-rises-hundreds-thousands-quit-looking/

The financial crisis in Europe and mounting problems in Chinas economy worry U.S. businesses about a second major recession and discourage

new hiring. The U.S. economy continues to expand at a torturously slow pace , and is quite vulnerable to

shock waves from crises in Europe and Asia. Factoring in those discouraged adults and others working part time for lack of full time opportunities, the unemployment rate is 15%. Prospects for substantially lowering theheadline unemployment rate are slim, because so many folks who left the labor force would likely return if economic conditions improved. Theeconomy would have to add about 13.3 million jobs over the next three years about 370,000 each month to bring unemployment down to6%. Growth in the range of 4-5% is necessary to accomplish that. Growth is weak and jobs are in jeopardy, because temporary tax cuts, stimulusspending, large federal deficits, expensive but ineffective business regulations, and costly health care mandates do not address structural problemsholding back dynamic growth and jobs creation the huge trade deficit and dysfunctional energy policies. Oil and trade with China account fornearly the entire $600 billion trade deficit. Dollars sent abroad that do not return to purchase U.S. exports, are lost purchasing power.Consequently, the U.S. economy is expanding at 2% a year instead of the 5% pace that is possible afteremerging from a deep recession and with such high unemployment. Without prompt efforts to

produce more domestic oil , redress the trade imbalance with China, relax burdensome business regulations, and curb health care

mandates and costs, the U.S. economy cannot grow and create enough jobs .

OCS drilling would create millions of new jobsMason 09 (Joseph, Ph.D. in Finance , University of Illinois, February 2011, The EconomicContribution of Increased Offshore Oil Exploration and Production to Regional and National EconomiesAmerican Energy Alliance)http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/images/aea_offshore_updated_final.pdf

An economic expansion tied to increased OCS resource production would also create millions of new jobs both in the extraction industry and in other sectors that serve as suppliers or their employees. The analysis below estimates employment increases that can be expected from opening up previously unavailable OCS Planning Areas. As before, effects areestimated for coastal states and the nation using the applicable BEA multipliers. Following that analysis, the paper compares the types of jobs thatwill be created in terms of the wage structure and seasonality relative to other existing jobs in coastal states. 1. BEA Multiplier Analysis Asabove, the analysis estimates both the immediate and the total economic effects associated with increased OCS oil and gas production. Using the investment multipliers (denominated in job-years per $1 million change in final demand) in Table A3 and total investment costs inTable 3, the expected coastal state changes in employment are represented in Table 9. 51 The annual increase in coastal stateemployment from initial investments in previously unavailable OCS planning areas and additionalrefining capacity is estimated to be 185,320 fulltime jobs per year. Again, this number does not consider the secondaryeffects of investment in productive capacity and refining to other U.S. states. To estimate the total increase in employment tied to production in

previously unavailable OCS Planning Areas, the BEAs final -demand employment multiplier is applied to the estimated total resource valueestimates in Table 4. The total increase in U.S. employment from the investment phase is approximately271,570 full-time jobs per year. Applying the BEA multipliers to the estimated production value results in the employment estimatesin Table 10. 52 According to Table 10, approximately 870,000 coastal state jobs would be created in addition to the jobs created during the initialinvestment phase. Again, the state BEA multipliers do not account for increases in employment outside of the target state. As a result,

secondary jobs created in one state based on OCS production in another state are omitted from the totalsin Table 10. The total increase in U.S. employment in all states that results from increased OCS

production is estimated by applying the overall U.S. employment multiplier (10.4152 job-years per $1 million) tothe total value of the additional OCS resources ($3,427,667,487,135), suggesting that approximately 35,700,000

total job-years would be created over the course of production in newly opened OCS Planning Areas. Ifwe again assume a 30 year production horizon, approximately 1,190,000 jobs would be sustained for theentire production period, approximately 340,000 of which are secondary jobs outside the coastal regions.

And, drilling has a multiplier effect that will boost our economy significantlyMason 09 (Joseph, Ph.D. in Finance, University of Illinois, February 2011, The EconomicContribution of Increased Offshore Oil Exploration and Production to Regional and National Economi es

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

7/23

American Energy Alliance)http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/images/aea_offshore_updated_final.pdf

The broadest measure of the incremental effect of increased OCS oil and natural gas extraction is the effect ontotal economic output. Output is generally expressed as Gross Domestic Product ( GDP ), which measures the total productionof goods and services in a given country. The corollary at the state level is known as Gross State Product (GSP). BEAs final demand output

multipliers can be used to perform two analyses. First, the multipliers are applied to initial investment costs in Table 3 todetermine the likely annual benefits that would accrue in the first years the OCS is open to development. Then, the multipliers areapplied to the resource value estimates in Table 4 to measure the expected total increase in output over the lifetime of the projects.Estimates are provided for both coastal states and the U.S., as a whole. In total, the investment and production phasestogether can be expected to contribute over $11 trillion in GDP over the project lifespan. Until OCS

production begins, onshore communities will realize only the benefits associated with offshoreinvestment. These benefits take two forms: (1) the development of the offshore facilities themselves and(2) the expansion of onshore refining capacity. These two effects, taken together, provide a roughapproximation of the additional output that would be created by allowing greater access to offshoreresources. Using the investment estimates from Table 3 and Table 6 and BEA multipliers in Table A3 above, the estimated increase in coastalstate economic output is presented in Table 7. The figures in Table 7 only provide the increase in output that is generated in the same state as the

increase in production. As an integrated economy , however, output in one state is tied to output in other states .

For example , Alabama workers building a facility off the Alabama shore might use steel produced in Illinoisand fabricated into pipes in Missouri. These effects may be considered secondary effects because theyspread from one state to other states. Using the individual multiplier for Alabama would thus under-report the total effect associatedwith production off the coast of Alabama. Using the total U.S. multipliers (2.2860 for refining and 2.3938 for extraction), the totalincrease in U.S. output is estimated to be about $0.5 trillion, or approximately $73 billion per year for thefirst seven years the OCS is open. For comparative purposes, a $73 billion stimulus amounts toapproximately 0.5 percent of total U.S. output (GDP) per year. 49 Of course, the investment expenditures and resulting outputestimated above is only made to facilitate oil and gas extraction. Once extraction begins, additional economic activitycontinues for the lifetime of the oil and natural gas resources. Applying the BEA multipliers for Oil and Gas Extractionin Table A3 to the estimates of the total value of the oil and gas resources in Table 4 yields the total increases to coastal state output from oil andgas extraction in Table 8. Table 8 indicates that increased OCS oil and gas extraction would yield approximately $192

billion per year in new coastal state output, or $5.75 trillion over the lifetime of the fields. Because the OCSareas are currently unavailable, the entire amount $5.75 trillion is additional output created by a change in policy allowing resourceextraction in additional OCS Planning Areas. To approximate the total increase in output associated with increasing offshore resource production,including the associated secondary effects, the overall United States output multiplier is applied (2.3938) to the total value of the applicable OCSresources ($3,427,667,487,135). Note that the multiplier for the United States captures sec ondary effects, being greater than any of the individualstate multipliers. 50 As a result, the state-by-state analysis in Table 8 misses approximately $2.45 trillion in secondary output. The totalincrease in output in the United States is estimated to total approximately $8.2 trillion or about $273

billion per year, which amounts to just over two percent of GDP.

SECOND price volatility

Increasing domestic oil production mitigates the impact of price volatilityWeidenmier 10 (Mark, adjunct scholar at AEI, 4/1/10, Drill, Baby, Drill American EnterpriseInstitute) http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/conventional-energy/drill-baby-drill/

Increasing U.S. domestic petroleum will not likely lower world oil prices --most experts believe that U.S. oil reserves aresmall in relation to the rest of the world. But it will help the U.S. offset the negative economic impact of a largeincrease in oil prices . For example, the economies of Alaska and Texas fare much better than non-energy

producing states when oil prices rise by 50% or 100%. Oil- and natural-gas-producing states experiencesmaller increases in unemployment and a smaller decline in non-farm employment during a peak oilshock. The reason for this is simple; the size of the energy sector expands during a period when oil prices

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

8/23

rise while the rest of the economy shrinks. The growing energy sector helps prop up other areas in theeconomy by increasing the demand for goods and services in non-oil industries.

Price volatility can collapse the U.S. economy biggest internal linkConway 13 --former commandant of the United States Marine Corps and president of the Marine CorpsUniversity (General James, As the senior operations officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was the

principle advisor on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to the president of the United States, the NationalSecurity Council and the secretary of defense, GEN. JAMES CONWAY: Oil dependence limits U.S.military options,, July 29, http://rare.us/story/ gen-james-conway-oil-dependence-limits-u-s-military-options/)

Oil markets are also highly volatile because there is very little flexibility at any point in time. In a very real sense,

oil dependence tethers the fate of our economy to the vacillations of the global oil market . Politicalinstability, terrorism, war even weather events in a far-flung corner of the globe can sendshockwaves that affect Americans at home . Because we lack substitutes to oil (particularly in the transportation sector,

which relies on oil for 93 percent of its fuel), U.S. consumers and businesses have no choice but to pay higher energy prices when the volatile

price of oil moves higher. Needless to say, being forced to pay higher energy costs is extremely damaging to oureconomy . It breaks budgets, costs jobs and even worsens our fiscal nightmare because it dampensoverall economic growth . It is no coincidence that every U.S. recession for the past 40 years has coincided

with a spike in oil prices . This economic vulnerability directly weakens national security. Because ofAmericas dependence on oil, the U.S. military is forced to shoulder the tremendous burden bothin dollars and military resources of guarding against oil supply disruptions across the globe .

US growth is key to global economic recoveryCaploe 09 (David, PhD in International political economy from Princeton, Focus still on America tolead global recovery, The Straits Times, 8/2/12)

IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made by

United States President Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: 'The world has becomeaccustomed to the US being a voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a lot of economicgrowth worldwide ,' he said. 'If there is going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as the engine.'While superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the global economy hasin fact been 'America-centred' for more than 60 years . Countries - China, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Korea,Mexico and so on - either sell to the US or they sell to countries that sell to the US . This system has generally beenadvantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically unprecedented benefits, but the system alsoenabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and later, many in the Third World -to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At the same time, this deep inter-connection between the US and therest of the world also explains how the collapse of a relatively small sector of the US economy - 'sub-

prime' housing, logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's ingenious chicanery - has cascaded intothe worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand thatthere is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six decades. If the US does not drive global economic growth, growthis not going to happen. Thus, US policies to deal with the current crisis are critical not just domestically, but also to the entire world.Consequently, it is a matter of global concern that the Obama administration seems to be following Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowingmajor banks to avoid declaring massive losses openly and transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in reality dead.As analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US banks isthe main reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable credit freeze, thus ravaging the American and global economies. TeamObama seems reluctant to acknowledge the extent to which its policies at home are failing not just there but around the world as well. Whichraises the question: If the US can't or won't or doesn't want to be the global economic engine, which countrywill? The obvious answer is China. But that is unrealistic for three reasons. First, China's economic healthis more tied to America's than practically any other country in the world. Indeed, the reason China has somany dollars to invest everywhere - whether in US Treasury bonds or in Africa - is precisely that it has

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

9/23

structured its own economy to complement America's . The only way China can serve as the engine of the global economy isif the US starts pulling it first. Second, the US-centred system began at a time when its domestic demand far outstripped that of the rest of theworld. The fundamental source of its economic power is its ability to act as the global consumer of last resort. China, however, is a poorcountry, with low per capita income, even though it will soon pass Japan as the world's second largesteconomy . There are real possibilities for growth in China's domestic demand. But given its structure as an export-oriented economy, it isdoubtful if even a successful Chinese stimulus plan can pull the rest of the world along unless and until China can start selling again to the US ona massive scale.

Finally, the key 'system' issue for China - or for the European Union - in thinking about becoming the engine of the world economy - is monetary: What are the implications of having your domestic currency become the global reserve currency? This is an extremely complex issue that the US has struggled with, not always successfully, from 1959 to the present. Without going into detail, it can safely be said that though having the US dollar as the world'smedium of exchange has given the US some tremendous advantages, it has also created huge problems,

both for America and the global economic system . The Chinese leadership is certainly familiar with this history. It will try toavoid the yuan becoming an international medium of exchange until it feels much more confident in its ability to handle the manifold currency

problems that the US has grappled with for decades. Given all this, the US will remain the engine of global economicrecovery for the foreseeable future, even though other countries must certainly help. This crisis began

Global economic decline causes nuclear warOckham Research 08 (Ockham Research, Economic Distress and Geopolitical Risks by: OckhamResearch, Ockham Research Staff November 18, 2008????Ockham Research Ockham Research is anindependent research provider based in Atlanta, Georgia providing security analysis)

The hardship and turmoil which impacted the world during the Great Depression provided fertile ground for the rise of fascist, expansionistregimes in Germany, Italy and Japan.?Hard times also precluded the Western democracies from a more muscular response in the face of growing

belligerence from these countries.?The United States largely turned inward during the difficult years of the 1930s.? The end result was a global war of a size and scale never seen by man (SIC) either before or since.? Economic hardship is distracting. It can causenations to turn their focus inward with little o r no regard for rising global threats that inevitably build in tumultuoustimes.?Authoritarian regimes invariably look for scapegoats to blame for the hardship affecting their populace.?This enables them to project theanger of their citizenry away from the regime itself and onto another race, country, ideology, etc.??Looking at the world tod ay, one cancertainly envision numerous potentia l flashpoints that could become problematic in a protracted economicdownturn .?Pakistan , already a hotbed of Islamic extremism and armed with atomic weapons, has been

particularly hard hit by the global economic crisis.?An increasingly impoverished Pakistan will be harder and harder for its new and shakydemocratically-elected government to control.? Should Pakistans economic troubles cause its political situation, always chaotic, to

spin out of control, this would be a major setback, in the global war on terror. ??Russia , whose economy, stockmarkets and financial system have literally imploded over the past few months , could become increasingly problematic if facedwith a protracted economic downturn .?The increasingly authoritarian and aggressive Russian regime is already showing signs of anger

projection. Its invasion of Georgia this summer and increasing willingness to confront the West reflect a desire to stoke the pride and anger of its people against foreign powers?particularly the United States. It is no accident that the, Russians, announced a willingness todeploy tactical missile systems ?to Kaliningrad the day after Barack Obama?s election in the U.S.?This was a clear ?shot across the

bow? of the new administration and demonstrates Russian willingness to pursue a much more confrontational foreign policy going forward.Furthermore, the collapse in the price of oil augers poorly for Russia?s economy. The Russian budget reputedly needs oil at $70 per barrel orhigher in order to be in balance. Russian foreign currency reserves, once huge, have been depleted massively over the past few months by ham-fisted attempts to arrest the slide in both markets and the financial system.Bristling with nuclear weapons and nursing an ego still badly bruised

by the collapse of the Soviet Union and loss of superpower status, an impoverished and unstable Russia would be a dangerous thing to behold.?? China too is threatened by the global economic downturn .?There is no doubt that China has emerged during the past decade as a major economic power. Parts of the country have been transformed by its meteoric growth. However, in truth, only about aquarter of the nations billion plus inhabitants?those living in the thriving cities on the coast and in Beijing, have truly felt the impact of theeconomic boom. Many of these people have now seen a brutal bear market and are adjusting to economic loss and diminished future

prospects.?However, the vast majority of China?s population did not benefit from the economic boom and could become increasingly restive inan economic slowdown.? Enough economic hardship could conceivably threaten the stability of the regime andwould more than likely make China more bellicose and unpredictable in its behavior, with dangerousconsequences for the U.S. and the world.

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

10/23

Contention Three: Geopolitics

Oil dependence constrains the US military credibility, it locks in intervention andconstrains options Alleviating oil dependence key to U.S. credibility

Blair 14 (Admiral Dennis C. Blair, U.S. Navy (Ret.) Former Director of National Intelligence andFormer Commander-in- Chief, U.S. Pacific Command, Oil Security 2025 U.S. National Security Policyin an Era of Domestic Oil Abundance, Jan 22, http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014 -01-22/oil-security-2025-report-us-remains-vulnerable

The national security, foreign policy, and geopolitical impacts of U.S. oil abundance are more nuanced andless understood. A wide range of market observers, policymakers , and other stakeholders have suggested that todaysshifts in energy market dynamics , extrapolated to the future, will result in major changes in global economics andregional security dynamics particularly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) with attendant benefi ts for the United States.For example, as reliance on foreign oil supplies decreases , it is often suggested that the United States coulddisengage militarily from volatile oil-producing regions, clearing the way for a larger security role

and increased burden-sharing by energy-hungry emerging economies , especially China and India. Although theremay one day be some truth to such assertions, very little of this analysis is based on a rigorous framework for understanding energy marketdynamics, and much of it ignores the potential for wide ranging uncertainty in current forecasts. Nonetheless, shifts in U.S. energy supply arelikely to have unexpected consequences for global energy suppliers, consumers, and even prices. For example, many long-time U.S. oil suppliers(such as Algeria, Angola, and Nigeria) have already begun to turn to new markets as U.S. demand for their oil declines, incurring substantialtransaction costs and losing revenue in the process. Such changes could, in turn, have important social, political, and economic impacts in theseand other countries. While navigating such changes, the U nited States will need to balance a combination of sometimescompeting interests diplomatic, military, and economic. To best serve the national interest, it will be critical forU.S. policymakers to consider the potential of the various impacts and implications of U.S. oil abundanceto initiate major changes in the global political and security environment. The lack of a robust framework forexamining these impacts stands out as a major gap in long-term policy planning. This report presents a scenario-based analysis through 2025 tohelp explore the likely impacts of rising U.S. oil production on a host of countries and regions across the globe specifi cally, the Middle Eastand North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Russia, and China. The scenarios comprise a combination of low and high cases for global oil demand andglobal oil supply, allowing rising U.S. oil production to be analyzed within the appropriate context of a global oil market. A group ofwildcards difficult-to-predict developments that could have a significant impact on either global oilsupply or demand are presented alongside the scenarios. The results of this scenario analysis show that the global impacts of risingU.S. oil production depend greatly upon the assumptions made regarding the global oil demand and supply outlook. The most important potentialimplications for U.S. policymakers are highlighted in detail, and a suite of policy recommendations are outlined. Regardless of the direction the

global oil market ultimately takes, the importance of oil to the U.S. economy and the global economy will

remain beyond dispute . The Commissions recommendations aim to better position the United States in the future by focusing on policy changes in the national security, diplomacy, and energy spheres that will strengthen the countrys capabilityto minimize global oil supply disruptions, enhance its resiliency in the face of any such disruption, and

bolster its response capabilities .

The plan sends a signal of strength which is key to credibilityManjarres 09 (Javier, political writer, 9/22/9, Offshore Drilling is an Essential Step Towards EnergyIndependence Red County) http://www.redcounty.com/node/32160

Modern oil extraction technology is safe and efficient, with enormous advances having been made overthe last 30 years . Combined with more effective modern response techniques for oil spills, the opposition to offshore oil drilling is quick toresort to the same old alarmist rhetoric that is intended to spread fear rather than educate the public. We can immediately begin decreasing ourdependency off foreign oil and provide Florida with an enormous economic boost if we were to open the coast of Florida to drilling immediately.Aside from the tangible beneficial effects that offshore drilling would bring to our economy, we must alsoconsider the symbolic message that it would send to the rest of the world. If we are being perceived byother developing nations as indecisive and weak unable to marshal energy resources right off our

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

11/23

own shores are we going to continue to pretend that other nations will not attempt to extract those sameenergy resources from right under our noses? Will opponents of offshore drilling continue to exude a falsesense of moral superiority to the global community simply because we refuse to open our own coastlinesto drilling even as other nations begin to drill within 50 miles of our own shores? The answer issimple we need to send a clear signal to the world that we can and will responsibly explore andmanage the energy resources both within our borders and along our shorelines, thereby encouraging ourglobal competitors to take their energy exploration efforts elsewhere. There are always critical juncturesin a nations history when a people need to move past dialogue for its own sake and into meaningful action, and we are at that

juncture now, especially in the security-conscious post 9/11 era. Clear majorities of people believe that the merits ofoffshore drilling are essential to our nations progress and security. For those who claim that the proponents of offshoredrilling are rushing into the endeavor, they should be reminded that our nation has been effectively dealing with offshore drilling bansemanating from different levels of government for over 30 years it is only recently that majorities of people understand the full ramifications ofcontinuing on with a self-defeating national energy policy. We encourage the requisite players in the oil industry to be as transparent andforthcoming with the American people as possible as we begin to throw the chains off our national energy policy. Just as fear and ignorance inthe 70s and 80s stalled the development of nuclear power in this countr y, similar public relations challenges confront the oil and gas industry.Informing and instructing the public about the necessity of oil exploration and drilling is an ongoing

process that needs to continue until it achieves a consensus so broad that it will force our legislators toabandon their inaction and obstruction on a matter of critical importance to our nations future.

Failed leadership causes extinction no alternative to hegemonyBrzezinski 12 Zbigniew K. Brzezinski (CSIS counselor and trustee and cochairs the CSIS AdvisoryBoard, holds honorary degrees from Georgetown University, Williams College, Fordham University,College of the Holy Cross, Alliance College, the Catholic University of Lublin, Warsaw University, andVilnius University. He is the recipient of numerous honors and awards) February 2012 After Americahttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/after_america?page=0,0

For if America falters , the world is unlikely to be dominated by a single preeminent successor -- not even China. International uncertainty,increased tension among global competitors, and even outright chaos would be far more likely outcomes. While a sudden,massive crisis of the American system -- for instance, another financial crisis -- would produce a fast-moving chain reaction leading to global

political and economic disorder , a steady drift by America into increasingly pervasive decay or endlessly widening warfare withIslam

would be unlikely to produce, even by 2025,

an effective global successor . No single power will be ready by then to

exercise the role that the world, upon the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, expected the United States to play: the leader of a new, globallycooperative world order. More probable would be a protracted phase of rather inconclusive realignments of bothglobal and regional power, with no grand winners and many more losers, in a setting of internationaluncertainty and even of potentially fatal risks to global well-being . Rather than a world where dreams of democracyflourish, a Hobbesian world of enhanced national security based on varying fusions of authoritarianism, nationalism, and religion could ensue.RELATED 8 Geopolitically Endangered Species The leaders of the world's second-rank powers, among them India, Japan, Russia, and some European countries, are already assessing the potential impact of U.S. decline on their respective nationalinterests. The Japanese, fearful of an assertive China dominating the Asian mainland, may be thinking of closer links with Europe. Leaders inIndia and Japan may be considering closer political and even military cooperation in case America falters and China rises. Russia , while

perhaps engaging in wishful thinking (even schadenfreude) about America's uncertain prospects, will almost certainly have its eyeon the independent states of the former Soviet Union. Europe , not yet cohesive, would likely be pulled inseveral directions: Germany and Italy toward Russia because of commercial interests, France and insecure Central Europe in favor of a

politically tighter European Union, and Britain toward manipulating a balance within the EU while preserving its special relationship with adeclining United States. Others may move more rapidly to carve out their own regional spheres: Turkey in the area ofthe old Ottoman Empire, Brazil in the Southern Hemisphere, and so forth. None of these countries, however, will have therequisite combination of economic, financial, technological, and military power even to considerinheriting America's leading role. China, invariably mentioned as America's prospective successor, has an impressive imperiallineage and a strategic tradition of carefully calibrated patience, both of which have been critical to its overwhelmingly successful, several-thousand-year-long history. China thus prudently accepts the existing international system, even if it does not view the prevailing hierarchy as

permanent. It recognizes that success depends not on the system's dramatic collapse but on its evolution toward a gradual redistribution of power.Moreover, the basic reality is that China is not yet ready to assume in full America's role in the world . Beijing's leadersthemselves have repeatedly emphasized that on every important measure of development, wealth, and power, China will still be a

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

12/23

modernizing and developing state several decades from now, significantly behind not only the UnitedStates but also Europe and Japan in the major per capita indices of modernity and national power .Accordingly, Chinese leaders have been restrained in laying any overt claims to global leadership. At some stage,however, a more assertive Chinese nationalism could arise and damage China's international interests . A swaggering,nationalistic Beijing would unintentionally mobilize a powerful regional coalition against itself. None ofChina's key neighbors -- India, Japan, and Russia -- is ready to acknowledge China's entitlement to America's place on the global totem pole.

They might even seek support from a waning America to offset an overly assertive China. The resultingregional scramble could become intense, especially given the similar nationalistic tendencies amongChina's neighbors. A phase of acute international tension in Asia could ensue. Asia of the 21st century could

then begin to resemble Europe of the 20th century -- violent and bloodthirsty . At the same time, thesecurity of a number of weaker states located geographically next to major regional powers also depends on theinternational status quo reinforced by America's global preeminence -- and would be made significantly morevulnerable in proportion to America's decline. The states in that exposed position -- including Georgia, Taiwan, South Korea,Belarus, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, and the greater Middle East -- are today's geopolitical equivalents ofnature's most endangered species. Their fates are closely tied to the nature of the international environment left

behind by a waning America, be it ordered and restrained or, much more likely, self-serving andexpansionist. A faltering United States could also find its strategic partnership with Mexico in jeopardy. America's economic resilience and political stability have so far mitigated many of the challenges posed by such sensitive neighborhood issues aseconomic dependence, immigration, and the narcotics trade. A decline in American power, however, would likelyundermine the health and good judgment of the U.S. economic and political systems. A waning UnitedStates would likely be more nationalistic, more defensive about its national identity, more paranoid aboutits homeland security, and less willing to sacrifice resources for the sake of others' development . Theworsening of relations between a declining America and an internally troubled Mexico could even give rise to a particularly ominous

phenomenon: the emergence, as a major issue in nationalistically aroused Mexican politics, of territorial claims justified by history and ignited bycross-border incidents. Another consequence of American decline could be a corrosion of the generallycooperative management of the global commons -- shared interests such as sea lanes, space, cyberspace,and the environment, whose protection is imperative to the long-term growth of the global economy andthe continuation of basic geopolitical stability. In almost every case, the potential absence of a constructive

and influential U.S. role would fatally undermine the essential communality of the global commons because the superiority and ubiquity of American power creates order where there would normally beconflict . None of this will necessarily come to pass. Nor is the concern that America's decline would generate global insecurity, endanger somevulnerable states, and produce a more troubled North American neighborhood an argument for U.S. global supremacy. In fact, the strategiccomplexities of the world in the 21st century make such supremacy unattainable. But those dreaming today of America's collapse would probablycome to regret it. And as the world after America would be increasingly complicated and chaotic, it is imperative thatthe United States pursue a new, timely strategic vision for its foreign policy -- or start bracing itself for a dangerous slide into global turmoil.

Effective OCS drilling critical to energy accessMills 12 (Mark, physicist, is an adjunct fellow with the Manhattan Institute and Forbes EnergyIntelligence columnist, served in President Ronald Reagans White House Science Office, 7/25/12, U.S.can become an energy export nation Politico)http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78978_Page2.html

A number of recent detailed forecasts predict that the U.S. could close in on zero imports if current trendscontinue. We could finally realize that elusive goal of energy independence. In the process, we could add nearly$1 trillion in cumulative federal, state and local government tax revenues and generate 2 to 4 million new jobs. But independence missesthe point in a world craving fuel. We need to become an exporter . The U.S. could, in collaboration with Canada and

Mexicosimilar to the North American Free Trade Agreement, forge policies to encourage hydrocarbon production and export. That would

reset geopolitics. And just starting down that path would really light a fire under job and economicgrowth. We know sufficient geophysical resources exist to support an export-nation policy. U.S. GeologicalSurvey data reveal that this continent has more than 10,000 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in natural gas,

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

13/23

oil and coal. Thats more than four times the resources of the Middle East. We consume only 20 billion ofthat a year. If we maximized North American hydrocarbon potential, our energy exports to the worldcould exceed those from the Middle East by 2030. This would add something like $7 trillion to oureconomies, spur manufacturing as well as research and development investment from the largesse andstimulate millions more high-paying jobs. And it would send tremors through the fields of the Middle East and Russia.The key toconverting r esources to producible reserves for export lies in advancing technology. We might even embrace the shocking idea of subsidi zing

this. But we cannot be an export nation without moving beyond a ball-and-chain regulatory system including access to the vast swaths of resources under off-limits federal lands. There is no doubt the worldwill use vastly more hydrocarbons in the future. The only real variables are who will supply all that fuel

and thus who will enjoy the economic and geopolitical benefits. We have the potential to be that leader.If we dont grab that chance, others will. Expanding North American hydrocarbon production for exportmay be our most important opportunity for growth as well as for long-term peace.

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

14/23

Contention Four: Solvency

Development of OCS oil jump-starts economic growth and domestic energyproduction

Hillegeist 13 President & COO @ Quest Offshore (Paul, The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S.Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic, December, http://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-

Natura....pdf)

5. 1 Conclusions The offshore U.S. oil and natural gas industry is a vital component to the nations energy supply, aswell a significant source of employment, economic activity, and government revenue throughout thenation . However, larg e portions of the nations federal waters are currently inaccessible to oil and gasoperators, including the Atlantic OCS area which shows strong potential for offshore oil and natural gasactivity . Allowing oil and gas operators access to Atlantic OCS offshore reserves is expected to benefit oil and natural gas production, employment, the national economy, and government revenue. If leasing in the AtlanticOCS began in 2018 and seismic in 2017, annual capital investment and other spending due to offshore oil and natural gas

development would be projected to grow from nearly $ 7 billion per year in 2025 to nearly $ 20 billion per yearin 2035 . Cumulative capital investments and other spending from 2017 to 2035 are projected at about $195 billio n. Atlantic coastOCS oil and gas activities could create nearly 80 thousand jobs by 2025 , of which nearly 40 thousand would be in theAtlantic coast s tates. By 2035, total national employment due to Atlantic OCS oil and gas exploration and

production would reach nearly 280 thousand jobs , with 215 thousand of these jobs in Atlantic coast states. Developmentof the Atlantic coasts offshore oil and natural g as reserves would lead to production of over 1.34 million

barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2035 . Atlantic OCS offshore activity would contribute nearly $6 .5 billion per year to the national economy in 2025 , with Atlantic coast states receiving contrib utions of over $3 billion per year . In 2035total national contributions to the economy could reach $23.5 billion per year , with Atlantic coast states receiving combined contributions of $18

billion per year . Combined state and federal revenues from bonuses, rents and royalties are projected toreach about $ 645 million per year in 2025 , with these revenues projected to grow to nearly $ 12.2 billion peryear in 2035 . If a legislated state / f ederal revenue sharing agreement is enacted, t he Atlantic coast states could see significant g ains totheir s tate budgets. With a 37.5 percent sharing agreement, s tate revenues are projected to be around $250 million per year by 2025, with these

revenues expected to grow to over $4.5 billion per year by 2035, leading to further increases in economic activity and employment. 19 If adifferent revenue perc entage were enacted, projected s tate revenues should be adjusted proportionally. Under the development scenario put forth by Quest Offshore Resources, it is clear that the Atlantic OCS displays significant potential to grow the Americaneconomy within a multitude of industries and locations . Allowing access to the Atlantic OCS for oil and gasexploration and production activities is likely to lead to large capital investments and operationalspending by oil and gas operators to develop the ar eas reserves . This spending would likely lead to largeincreases in employment and economic activity both in the directly affected states and nationally .Additionally, this activity is projected to lead to a large increase in domestic energy production and theroyalties plus other revenues received are expected to lead to healthy increases in revenues to state andfederal governments .

Significant oil production would come online quickly

IER 09 (2/11/09, Offshore Energy Exploration: Myth vs. Fact Institute for Energy Research)

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/02/11/offshore-energy-exploration-myth-vs-fact-2/

Further, while there may be areas along the Atlantic coast without the significant build-out of infrastructureneeded to facilitate quick energy production, other currently unexplored areas do have that infrastructurein place, such as the eastern Gulf of Mexico. No serious observer has ever suggested that it would takeanywhere close to ten years to access those energy resources and deliver them to American consumers. Furthermore, in

places like California, where an infrastructure is already in place and the local community supportsoffshore exploration, those resources could be available in a significantly shorter period of time.

http://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-Natura....pdfhttp://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-Natura....pdfhttp://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-Natura....pdfhttp://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-Natura....pdfhttp://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-Natura....pdfhttp://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-Natura....pdfhttp://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-Natura....pdf

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

15/23

1NC

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

16/23

Economy

Jobs recovering new high pointBuford 7-3 (Talia, Pro Report: Economy adds 288,000 jobs U.S. trade deficit shrinks Dems

begin fundraising on Export- Import Bank, 2014,http://www.politico.com/proreport/0714/proreport14527.html)

JOBS REPORT COMES IN BETTER THAN EXPECTED : This from Jon Prior and Zachary Warmbrodt[http://politico.pro/VjdzN6]: The stronger than expected jobs report released on Thursday will likely calm fearsabout the strength of the economic recovery and bolster Democrats arguments that hiring is on the upswing in advance ofthe mid-term elections. The economy added 288,000 jobs in June while the unemployment rate dropped to6.1 percent , the Labor Department reported Thursday. Analysts had expected job growth of about 215,000, according to a Bloomberg surveyof economists. The unemployment rate is now at its lowest level since September 2008 , when the financial crisishit full stride following the failure of Lehman Brothers.

No effect on jobs or oil prices recent production trends proveKrugman 12 Nobel Prize Winner, American economist, Professor of Economics and InternationalAffairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University,Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics (Paul, Natural Born Drillers, March 15,http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/krugman-natural-born-drillers.html, CMR)

The irony here is that these claims come just as events are confirming what everyone who did the math already knew, namely, that U.S.energy policy has very little effect either on oil prices or on overall U.S. employment. For the truth is that werealready having a hydrocarbon boom, with U.S. oil and gas production rising and U.S. fuel importsdropping. If there were any truth to drill-here-drill-now, this boom should have yielded substantiallylower gas oline prices and lots of new jobs . Predictably , however, it has done neither . Why the hydrocarbon boom?Its all about the fracking. The combination of horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing o f shale and other low-permeability rocks has openedup large reserves of oil and natural gas to production. As a result, U.S. oil production has risen significantly over the pastthree years , reversing a decline over decades, while natural gas production has exploded . Given this expansion, itshard to claim that excessive regulation has crippled energy production . Indeed, reporting in The Times makes it clearthat U.S. policy has been seriously negligent that the environmental costs of fracking have been underplayed and ignored. But, in a way, thatsthe point. The reality is that far from being hobbled by eco-freaks, the energy industry has been given a largely free hand toexpand domestic oil and gas production , never mind the environment. Strange to say, however, while natural gas prices havedropped, rising oil production and a sharp fall in import dependence havent stopped gas oline prices fromrising toward $4 a gallon . Nor has the oil and gas boom given a noticeable boost to an economic recoverythat , despite better news lately, has been very disappointing on the jobs front .

Economic benefits overstatedSolomon 8/12 /2012 (Deborah, Drill, Baby, Drill? It Wont Necessarily Pay, Baby, Pay,http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-09/drill-baby-drill-it-won-t-necessarily-pay-baby-pay.html, CMR)

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney continually faults President Barack Obama for not allowing more oil and gas drilling in the U.S.,saying he's leaving money on the table in the midst of an energy boom. A new report shows that claim comes up a bit short. TheC ongressional B udget O ffice found the potential revenue from expanded offshore and onshore drilling may be lessof a budgetary boon than lawmakers hope . Immediately opening most federal lands to oil and gas leasing ,including Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, would yield about $ 7 billion in additional receipts over the next 10 years, according to CBO. Much of that money would flow not to the U.S. Treasury but to the state of Alaska . Oil and gas drillingis now restricted on some federal lands, including ANWR and sections of the Outer Continental Shelf, which consists of submerged lands off theAtlantic, Pacific and Florida coastlines. Lawmakers -- particularly those in coastal states like Virginia and Louisiana -- have asked Obama to

http://www.politico.com/proreport/0714/proreport14527.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/krugman-natural-born-drillers.htmlhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-09/drill-baby-drill-it-won-t-necessarily-pay-baby-pay.htmlhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-09/drill-baby-drill-it-won-t-necessarily-pay-baby-pay.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/krugman-natural-born-drillers.htmlhttp://www.politico.com/proreport/0714/proreport14527.html

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

17/23

allow expanded drilling for economic reasons, saying leases and royalties will provide much-needed revenue. In July, a group of bipartisanlawmakers proposed legislation to open drilling in ANWR and the outer-continental shelf, saying it would create jobs, produce revenue andreduce dependence on foreign sources of oil. The potential amount of money has seemed tantalizing. The U.S. is expected to realize $150 billionover the next decade from oil and gas drilling that's currently allowed on federal land. Opening additional lands to oil and gas drilling would

provide more revenues to the U.S. government but the actual economic boost depends on many variables, includinghow much oil is found, its future price and any revenue-sharing deals cut with coastal states .

Plan causes oil spills kills the economy and ensures job lossValtin 6 (Tom, Offshore Drilling Moratorium Threatened, April 28,http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/200603/offshore.asp, CMR)

For the past 25 years, there has been strong, bipartisan support for a moratorium on offshore drilling. In 1981, responding to public sentiment,Congress adopted the Outer Continental Shelf ( OCS ) Moratorium , which prevents the leasing of coastal waters off theAtlantic and Pacific coasts and Alaskas Bristol Bay for fossil fuel development . Each year since then Congresshas renewed the moratorium. In 1990, the first President Bush authored an additional level of protection deferring new leasing until 2002, whichPresident Clinton extended to 2012. But these protections are now in danger of being weakened or overturned by thecurrent Bush administration and its allies in Congress. Drilling off our coasts is not the way to achieve energy independence or bring down gas-

pump and home heating prices, says Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope. We dont need to sacrifice our beaches and coa stal waters tomeet Americas energy needs. Tourism, commercial and sport fishing, and real estate generate billions of dollarsof economic activity and millions of jobs in Americas coastal communities . And spills are more common

than the drilling industry would have the public believe , as the 200,000-gallon crude oil spill just west of the Arctic NationalWildlife Refuge this March attests. Between 1980 and 1999, three million gallons of oil spilled from offshore oil and gasoperations in the Gulf of Mexico the equivalent of 400 gallons a day while tens of thousands of pounds ofmercury have been dumped around oil rigs in the Gulf . Nevertheless, in February the Department of Interiors MineralsManagement Service released a 5-year OCS planning document that details future leasing and development on the mid-Atlantic coast, the Gulf ofMexico, and Alaska. Meanwhile, Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) introduced a plan to open up nearly four million acres of the Gulf of Mexicoto drilling, and Representative John Peterson (R-Pa.) introduced a House bill to immediately repeal the OCS moratorium. Fresh off a year ofrecord-breaking profits, the oil and gas industry is taking aim first at Virginia. In March, the Virginia General Assembly passed a bill, S.B. 262,calling on Congress to authorize d rilling off the Virginia coast. The Assembly not only wrote off the bipartisan support that has kept themoratorium in place, it also disregarded the economic lifeblood that tourism pumps into the state, says Sierra Club Virginia Chapter DirectorMichael Town. Offshore drilling could turn our beaches and coastal waters into an industrial zone . The city ofVirginia Beach alone attracts more than three million visitors each year, generating $700 million in tourist spending and providing some 11,000

jobs within the city. We have too much to lose by allowing oil and gas companies to drill off our coast , saysChesapeake Bay Group Chair Fred Adams. The economy of the Tidewater region is based on tourism, retirees, and the military. The first two

groups in particular come here for the environment. Any potential benefits of drilling are not commensurate with the risksinvolved .

Wont help the economy lack of demandAuer, 12 (Matthew, dean of the Hutton Honors College and professor at the School of Public andEnvironmental Affairs at Indiana University, March 4, 2012, Without a surge in demand, drilling for oilwon't help economy http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765556024/Wiithout -a-surge-in-demand-drilling-for-oil-wont-help-economy.html?pg=all)

Why? Natural gas prices are near 10-year lows and some wells are losing money. Breakthroughs in gasextraction in particular, hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" have made gas cheap and abundant . Gas inventories are pilingup, and if reserves go unsold, expect prices to fall further. The natural gas glut has repercussions in other parts of the

energy sector . Comparatively expensive solar has lost its luster and cheap gas could knock the wind out of wind especially if Congressallows tax credits for wind energy to expire. Dirtier parts of the national energy portfolio are suffering, too. Cheap gasis partly to blame for recent layoffs in Appalachian coal mines . Cheap energy for the ethylene industry or any industry

is wonderful, so long as there is sustained consumer demand. What ails the economy isn't solved by new investments incoal mines, oil fields, and gas wells unless people are consuming . Post-recession personal consumptionhas badly lagged the previous two economic recoveries. Stubbornly high unemployment rates are a big

part of the problem. So is a deflated housing market and feeble levels of residential investment. Meanwhile, prospective full-bore development of American offshore oil won't have a major dampening effect on gas prices nor will the modest additions to our crude oil supply from TransCanada's currently-stalled Keystone XL pipeline project. Drill all

http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/200603/offshore.asphttp://www.sierraclub.org/planet/200603/offshore.asp

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

18/23

you want , baby. But don't be a cry baby when gas prices stay high. What works to make natural gas affordable currentlydoesn't work the same way for oil . Gas injection and other enhanced oil recovery methods are more complicated and costly to deploythan fracking. Let's assume for the sake of argument that a big burst of investment public, private or both in fossil fuel

production really shifts our economy into high gear in 2012. Can't complain, right? Wrong, once the long-termcosts are accounted for. A fossil-fuel intensive economic recovery may generate jobs in areas we neverreally intended : experts at repairing groundwater fouled by fracking, doctors skilled at treating asthmatics, idled fishermen donning hazmatsuits, scrubbing oil off the beaches, and so on. Fossil fuels are the engines of our economy. We are dumb to develop and bringthese fuels to market in the absence of robust demand. We are dirty and dumb if we extract and burn these fuels withoutanticipating the public health and environmental consequences.

Any effect on the economy is long-term and insignificant 3 reasonsElmendorf 11 (Douglas, Director of CBO, Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment in 2012 and 2013 before the Committee on the Budget United States Senate, Nov 15,http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-15-Outlook_Stimulus_Testimony.pdf, CMR)

Energy and the Environment. Projects to increase the production of energy are typically subject to review by multiple levels of government.Federal agencies generally focus on compliance with national performance standards and on infrastructure that crosses state boundaries, such as

pipelines and electric power transmission lines. Federal agencies also determine the conditions under which the privatesector can develop resources on public lands, such as the O uter C ontinental S helf and national forests. Those review processesgenerally aim to limit damage to health and the environment from economic activity, but they also affect the amount and pace of investments in the energy sector. For example, the federal approval process may delay or prevent the launching of projects that, if ultimately approved andundertaken, would result in significant investment and production. In addition, the prospect of such delays and the risk of projects being

blocked deter some projects from being proposed at all. The federal government could increase employment and output during the next few years by hastening or relaxing the approval process for energy projects or by expanding opportunities to develop resources on public lands.

However, the short-term effects of such changes would probably be small relative to the size of the

overall economy for several reasons. First, state and local governments strongly influence the siting of energyfacilities within their boundaries, and the federal government does not control the actions of thosegovernments . Second, even if additional projects were approved in the next few years, many of them would notcommence in earnest for several years . Finally, energy production accounts for only a small percentage ofoverall output, so incremental gains in that sector would have only a modest effect on the economy as a

whole .

No global economic collapse and it wouldnt cause conflict Drezner 11 (Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law andDiplomacy at Tufts University, 8-12- 2011, Please come down off the ledge, dear readers, Foreign

polivy, http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/, CMR)

So, when we last left off this debate, things were looking grim . My concern in the last post was that the persistence of hardtimes would cause governments to take actions that would lead to a collapse of the open global economy, a spike in general riots and

disturbances, and eerie echoes of the Great Depression. Let's assume that the global economy persists in sputtering fora while , because that's what happens after major financial shocks. Why won't these other bad things happen? Why isn't it1931? Let's start with the obvious -- it's not gonna be 1931 because there's some passing familiarity with how

1931 played out . The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has devoted much of his academic career to studying the Great Depression. I'mgonna go out on a limb therefore and assert that if the world plunges into a another severe downturn, it's not gonna be because central bank headsreplay the same set of mistakes. The legacy of the Great Depression has also affected public attitudes andinstitutions that provide much stronger cement for the current system. In terms of publuc attitudes, comparethe results of this mid-2007 poll with this mid-2010 poll about which economic system is best. I'll just reproduce the key charts below: 2007 pollresults 2010 poll results The headline of the 2010 results is that there's eroding U.S. support for the global economy, but a few other things stand

out. U.S. support has declined, but it's declined from a very high level. In contrast, support for free markets has increased inother major powers , such as Germany and China. On the whole, despite the worst global economic crisis since theGreat Depression, public attitudes have not changed all that much . While there might be populist

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-15-Outlook_Stimulus_Testimony.pdfhttp://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-15-Outlook_Stimulus_Testimony.pdf

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

19/23

demands to "do something," that something is not a return to autarky or anything so drastc. Another bigdifference is that multilateral economic institutions are much more robust now than they were in 1931. On tradematters, even if the Doha round is dead, the rest of the W orld T rade O rganization 's corpus of trade-liberalizing measuresare still working quite well. Even beyond the WTO, the complaint about trade is not the deficit of free-trade agreements but the surfeitof them. The IMF's resources have been strengthened as a result of the 2008 financial crisis . The BasleCommittee on Banking Supervision has already promulgated a plan to strengthen capital requirements for banks. True, it's a slow, weak-assed

plan, but it would be an improvement over the status quo. As for the G-20, I've been pretty skeptical about that group's abilities to collectivelyaddress serious macroeconomic problems. That is setting the bar rather high, however. One could argue that the G-20's most usefulfunction is reassurance . Even if there are disagreements, communication can prevent them from growing into

anything worse. Finally, a note about the possibility of riots and other general social unrest. Theworking paper cited in my previous post noted the links between austerity measures and increases indisturbances . However, that paper contains the following important paragraph on page 19 : [I]n countries with betterinstitutions, the responsiveness of unrest to budget cuts is generally lower . Where constraints onthe executive are minimal, the coefficient on expenditure changes is strongly negative -- morespending buys a lot of social peace. In countries with Polity-2 scores above zero, the coefficient isabout half in size, and less significant . As we limit the sample to ever more democratic countries, thesize of the coefficient declines . For full democracies with a complete range of civil rights, the coefficient is still negative, but nolonger significant. This is good news!! The world has a hell of a lot more democratic governments now than itdid in 1931 . What happened in London, in other words, might prove to be the exception more than the rule. So yes, the recenteconomic news might seem grim . Unless political institutions and public attitudes buckle, however, we're unlikely to

repeat the mistakes of the 19 30's . And, based on the data we've got, that's not going to happen.

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

20/23

Geopolitics

No dependency

Existing production is sufficient also solves economyDavidson 14 (Paul, U.S. may be inching toward oil independence, Feb 9,http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/07/falling-oil-imports/5268819/)

U.S. oil imports fell sharply again in 2013 while petroleum exports rose , leading some analysts to proclaim that anew era of energy independence is just a few years away . Experts largely credit new drilling techniquesthat have unearthed vast troves of previously inaccessible oil embedded in shale deposits in states such as

North Dakota and Texas. " We're at the beginning of a long upswing ," says Citigroup analyst Eric Lee. Crude oilimports declined 9% last year to 2.8 billion barrels , lowest since 1995, and are down 17% since 2010 ,according to the Census Bureau. Meanwhile, exports , mostly of refined gasoline and diesel, rose about 11%, narrowing thecountry's petroleum deficit by about $59 billion, or 20%, to $233 billion. Lee attributes the exports'increase to the abundance of U.S. oil and reduced U.S. consumption as fuel-efficient vehiclesproliferate . The shrinking petroleum gap was almost entirely responsible for a $63 billion decline inthe nation's overall trade deficit last year to $471.5 billion, the lowest since 2009 , Census said. The nation'sdiminishing dependence on foreign oil doesn't insulate it from wild price swings, because oil prices are set by global markets. But growing U.S.production has added to the world's supply and prevented sharp price increases that could haveresulted from political conflicts that reduced oil exports from Iran and Libya since 2012 , analysts say."U.S. crude oil production has played a major role in offsetting disruptions elsewhere ," says JimBurkhard, an analyst with research firm IHS CERA. U.S. crude oil production increased to an estimated 7.7 millionbarrels a day last year from 6.5 million barrels a day in 2012 , according to the Energy Information Administration.The EIA expects production to rise another 16% by 2020. But Citigroup 's Lee expects even moredramatic gains by then, leaving the U.S. a net exporter of oil and making it virtually self-sufficient inoil production .

OCS drilling locks-in high gas pricesAltaffer 8 (Mary, Ten Reasons Not to Expand Offshore Drilling, Sept 15,http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-to-expand-offshore-drilling/, CMR)

5. Drilling could lock us in to a future of expensive gas oline. By committing to costly recovery, oilcompanies are betting that oil prices (and gas prices) will stay high enough to justify their investments.Opening the O uter Continental Shelf could never bring us back to $2-a-gallon gas , but would ensure thatcompanies that develop the newly available oil have an interest in keeping gas prices high enough to

justify their investments .

Plan prevents long-term flexibility turns the caseCBO (Congressional Budget Office) 12 (Energy Security in the United States, May,http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdf, CMR)

Another consideration is that increased production of oil in the near term comes at the expense of a decreased capacity to produce oil farther in the future, when prices might be even higher and the ability to reducethose prices might be valued even more highly by households and businesses . Consumption of oil byChina, India, and Brazil is expected to rise by 2 percent to 4 percent annually between 2008 and 2035 ; incontrast, oil consumption is expected to increase by 0.3 percent annually in the U nited States over that

period .39 Such growth in world consumption is expected to put upward pressure on oil prices (unless sufficient

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/07/falling-oil-imports/5268819/http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-to-expand-offshore-drilling/http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-to-expand-offshore-drilling/http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdfhttp://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdfhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-to-expand-offshore-drilling/http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-to-expand-offshore-drilling/http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/07/falling-oil-imports/5268819/

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

21/23

new sources of oil are identified and developed), causing the value of oil inventories to rise , regardless of whether that oil isheld above ground or left underground in its original reservoirs. Thus, by not developing all of its oil resources now, theUnited States is retaining more flexibility in the future should oil prices rise dramatically .

Oil dependence net reduces interventionism allows for cooperation over terrorism

and gives the U.S. a fiscal incentive to not interveneMiller 10 assistant professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma (Gregory D., April 2010, Center for Strategic and International Stud ies, The Washington Quarterly 33:2, The Security Costs of Energy Independence, http://www.twq.com/10april/docs/10apr_Miller.pdf, CMR)

One counterargument is that the U nited States has been drawn into a number of conflicts as a result of itsdependence on Middle East oil , such as the reflagging of the Kuwaiti oil tankers in 1987 and the 1991 Persian Gulf War.5 According to this logic, reducing its dependence onforeign oil would help the United States stay out of such conflicts. Although plausible, a useful exercise is to imagine a future where the U nited Statesis no longer dependent on Middle Eastern states for oil. Although the U nited States will still have importanteconomic and political interests in the Middle East, such as Israel, Iraq, and Turkey as a NATO ally, if oilno longer provides states with some leverage over U.S. foreign policy, then the U nited States can pursue itsinterests with less concern about retaliation by oil-exporting states or by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countr ies

(OPEC ). Conversely, as long as oil-exporting states depend on the U nited States to purchase oil, they are more

inclined to assist the United States in pursuing any of its interests, such as the fight againstterrorism . Consequently, if states no longer depend on the U nited States as a consumer, they may have less interestin cooperating with the U nited States.

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

22/23

Solvency

Production take at least 10 years and wont solve prices star this card- 10 years for development- 10 more years for peak production- wont solve short -term disruption- benefits are offset by other countries responses- recent production proves no effect on prices- impossible to predict

CBO (Congressional Budget Office) 12 (Energy Security in the United States, May,http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdf, CMR)

Increase Domestic Oil Production. Policies designed to increase the domestic production of oil could lower world oil pricesover the long run (though the effect would probably be small), but they would probably not reduce the vulnerability of U.S.households and businesses to disruptions in oil supplies . Such policies could include opening more of the O uterContinental Shelf or the Arctic to drilling, expediting regulatory approval of applications to drill, or reducing the fees charged to private firms(for example, the royalties paid to the government for each barrel of oil produced) when the government makes oil underlying federal landsavailable for extraction.34Those policies would probably increase the amount of oil brought to the world market, which would lower world oil prices for the time that the

additional supply was available. The magnitude of the price reduction would depend on the volume of oil produced and the response by othercountries to the introduction of the new supply. To illustrate, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling could boost domestic oil production by as much as 0.5 to 1.5 million barrels per day (an increase of 9 percent to 27 percent of U.S. production based on 2010 production levels), which could lower world oil prices by $0.41 to $1.44 per barrel in2025, relative to a base case in which oil was $65 per barrel and assuming no change in oil production elsewhere in the world; that decline

would be expected to reduce gasoline prices by 1 to 3 cents per gallon.35 Production would not commence until 10 years

after development was first allowed , and peak production would not occur until 10 years after that .Some oil fields on land can be developed more quickly (within a few years), but deepwater oil fields are expected to have the largest quantity of

oil. Such development would not be expected to offset temporary supply disruptions but could increase long-run production in the United States.

EIA further estimates that such an increase in production would be largely offset by a corresponding decrease in

output from other large oil-producing countries, resulting in little observable change in the price of oil.

For example, Khalid Al Falih, chief executive officer of Saudi Aramco, recently said that Saudi Arabia would reduce its plannedoutput capacity expansion given massive capacity expansions coming out of countries like Brazil [and] Iraq.36 Thus, increasing production in the U nited States might not increase the wo rlds oil supply substantially orlower the price of oil significantly . For example, oil and gasoline prices have not fallen over the past few yearsdespite an increase in U.S. oil production during that period. Moreover, because any new productive capacity inthe United States would be controlled by private firms and not the government (as it is for OPEC members), that new capacity would be used in amounts determined by the owners and not necessarily held as spare capacity tooffset disruptions .U.S. government agencies estimate that the amount of oil that is technically feasible to recover in the United States is 162 billion barrels (22

billion barrels of which has already been discovered); according to recent estimates, technically recoverable oil resources in the United States are equivalent to 78 years of supply at 2010 domestic production levels, or 29 years of supply if produced at the level of currentconsumption.37 Determining the effect on world prices of finding and producing additional oil is difficult, given theuncertainty inherent in bringing the oil to market and the possible reaction of other oil producing

countries .

Production is too expensive and any benefit is 20 years awayAltaffer 8 (Mary, Ten Reasons Not to Expand Offshore Drilling, Sept 15,http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-to-expand-offshore-drilling/, CMR)

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdfhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-to-expand-offshore-drilling/http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-to-expand-offshore-drilling/http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-to-expand-offshore-drilling/http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-to-expand-offshore-drilling/http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdf

8/12/2019 OCS Drill 7-16

23/23

6. Production would be expensive , would not start for a long time , and would have no short-term

effect on oil prices . The average oil field size in the OCS is smaller than the average in the Gulf of

Mexico , which is already being developed. As a result, much of the oil in the OCS would be expensive to extract , and

is only becoming attractive now as a result of high oil prices. According the Energy Information Administration, it would take at least

five years for oil production to begin . EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil productionor price until nearly 20 years after leasing begins .

Lack