8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

1/144

***case defense

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

2/144

econ 1nc

[Insert defense to answer specific 1AC Internal Links]

Plan causes oil spillskills the economy and ensures job loss

Valtin 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 theOuter Continental Shelf (OCS) Moratorium, which prevents the leasing of coastal waters off the

Atlantic and Pacific coasts and Alaskas Bristol Bay for fossil fuel development.Each year since then Congress hasrenewed the moratorium. In 1990, the first President Bush authored an additional level of protection deferring new leasing until 2002, which

President 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 beachesand coastal waters

to meet Americas energy needs.Tourism, commercial and sport fishing, and real estate generate billions of

dollars of 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 National Wildlife Refuge this March attests. Between 1980 and 1999, three million gallons of oil spilled from offshore

oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexicothe equivalent of 400 gallons a daywhile tens of thousands of

pounds of mercury have been dumped around oil rigs in the Gulf.Nevertheless, in February the Department ofInteriors Minerals Management Service released a 5-year OCS planning document that details future leasing and development on the mid-

Atlantic coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska. Meanwhile, Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) introduced a plan to open up nearly four million

acres of the Gulf of Mexico to drilling, and Representative John Peterson (R-Pa.) introduced a House bill to immediately repeal the OCS

moratorium.Fresh off a year of record-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 drilling off the Virginia coast. The Assembly not only wrote off the bipartisan

support that has kept the moratorium in place, it also disregarded the economic lifeblood that tourism pumps into the state,says Sierra Club

Virginia Chapter Director Michael Town. Offshore drilling could turn our beaches and coastal waters into an

industrial zone.The city of Virginia 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, says Chesapeake 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 risks involved.

Wont help the economy lack of demand

Auer, 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 oil

won'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 gas

extractionin 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 Congress

allows tax credits for wind energy to expire. Dirtier parts of the national energy portfolio are suffering, too. Cheap

gas is 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 in coal mines, oil fields, and gas wells unless people are consuming.Post-recession

personal consumption has badly lagged the previous two economic recoveries. Stubbornly high

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

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

3/144

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 you want, baby. But don't be a cry baby when gas prices stay high. What works to

make natural gas affordable currently doesn't work the same way for oil. Gas injection and other enhanced oil

recovery methods are more complicated and costly to deploy than fracking.Let's assumefor the sake of argument that a big burst

of investmentpublic, private or both in fossil fuel production really shifts our economyinto high gear in 2012.

Can't complain, right? Wrong, once the long-term costs are accounted for. A fossil-fuel intensive

economic recovery may generate jobs in areas we never really intended: experts at repairing groundwater fouled byfracking, doctors skilled at treating asthmatics, idled fishermen donning hazmat suits, scrubbing oil off the beaches, and so on. Fossil fuels are

the engines of our economy. We are dumb to develop and bring these fuels to market in the absence of robust

demand.We are dirty and dumb if we extract and burn these fuels without anticipating the public health and environmental consequences.

Any effect on the economy is long-term and insignificant3 reasons

Elmendorf 11(Douglas, Director of CBO, Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employmentin 2012 and 2013before the Committee on the BudgetUnited 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 typicallysubject to review by multiple levels of government.

Federal agencies generallyfocus on compliance with national performance standards and on infrastructure thatcrosses state boundaries,

such as pipelines and electric power transmission lines. Federalagencies also determine the conditions under which the

private sector can developresources on public lands, such as the O uter C ontinental S helf and national forests.Those reviewprocesses generally aim to limit damage to health and the environmentfrom economic activity, but they also affect the amount and pace of

investments inthe energy sector. For example, the federal approval process may delay or prevent thelaunching of projects that, if ultimately

approved and undertaken, would result in significantinvestment and production. In addition, the prospect of such delays and therisk of

projects being blocked deter some projects from being proposed at all.The federal government could increase employment and output

during the next fewyears by hastening or relaxing the approval process for energy projects or by expandingopportunities to develop

resources on public lands. However, the short-term effects ofsuch changes wouldprobably be small relative to

the size of the overall economy forseveral reasons. First, state and local governments strongly influence the

siting ofenergy facilities within their boundaries, and the federal government does not controlthe

actions of those governments. Second, even if additional projects were approvedinthe next few years, manyof

them would not commencein earnest for several years.Finally, energy production accounts for only a small

percentage of overall output, soincremental gainsin that sector would have only a modest effect on the

economy as awhole.

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

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

4/144

econ 1ncimpact d

Recovery deep and resilientno risk of relapse

Perry 13(Mark J, full professor of economics at the Flint campus of The University of Michigan, where

he has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in economics and finance since 1996. Starting in thefall of 2009, A testament to economic resilience, 12-24, http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/a-

testament-to-economic-resilience-world-trade-and-output-both-reached-new-all-time-record-highs-in-

october/)

Bottom Line: World industrial output and world merchandise trade both reached new record monthly

highsin October. The volumes of world output and trade are now both solidly above their previous peaks during

the early months of the global slowdown in20 08 (by 10.1% and 7.2% respectively), suggesting that the global economy

hasnow made a complete recovery from the20 08 -2009 economic slowdown. At the forefront of the global economic

expansion this year are the emerging economies, which experienced especially strong growthover the last year through

October in both trade volumes (4.7% export growth and 5.4% import growth) and industrial output (4.1%). The complete recovery

over the last several years in the global economy to new record highs forboth global trade andglobal industrial output

demonstrates the incredible resiliency of economies around the world to recover and prosper, even

following the worst financial crisisand global economic slowdown in generations.

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 offthis 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 assumethat the global economy persists in sputtering fora while, because that's what happens after major financial shocks. Why won'tthese other bad things happen? Why isn't it

1931?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

heads replay the same set of mistakes. The legacy of the Great Depression has also affected public attitudes and

institutions that provide much stronger cement for the current system.In terms of publuc attitudes, compare the

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 poll

results 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

in other major powers, such as Germany and China. On the whole, despite the worst global economic crisis since the

Great Depression, public attitudes have not changed all that much. While there might be populist demands

to "do something," that something is not a return to autarky or anything so drastc. Another big difference is that

multilateral economic institutions are much more robust now than they were in 1931. On trade matters, even if the

Doha round is dead, the rest of the World Trade Organization'scorpus of trade-liberalizing measures are stillworking

quite well.Even beyond the WTO, the complaint about trade is not the deficit of free-trade agreements but the surfeit of them. The

IMF's resources have been strengthened as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. The Basle Committee on BankingSupervision 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 collectively address serious

macroeconomic problems. That is setting the bar rather high, however. One could argue that the G-20's most useful function is

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/a-testament-to-economic-resilience-world-trade-and-output-both-reached-new-all-time-record-highs-in-october/http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/a-testament-to-economic-resilience-world-trade-and-output-both-reached-new-all-time-record-highs-in-october/http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/a-testament-to-economic-resilience-world-trade-and-output-both-reached-new-all-time-record-highs-in-october/http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/a-testament-to-economic-resilience-world-trade-and-output-both-reached-new-all-time-record-highs-in-october/http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/a-testament-to-economic-resilience-world-trade-and-output-both-reached-new-all-time-record-highs-in-october/http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/a-testament-to-economic-resilience-world-trade-and-output-both-reached-new-all-time-record-highs-in-october/

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

5/144

reassurance. Even if there are disagreements, communication can prevent them from growing into anything

worse. Finally, a note about the possibility of riots andother general social unrest.The working papercited

in my previous post noted the links between austerity measures and increases in disturbances. However, that

paper contains the following important paragraph on page 19: [I]n countries with better institutions, the

responsiveness of unrest to budget cuts is generally lower . Where constraints on the executive are

minimal, the coefficient on expenditure changes is strongly negative -- more spending buys a lot of

social peace. In countries with Polity-2 scores above zero, the coefficient is about half in size, and less

significant. As we limit the sample to ever more democratic countries, the size of the coefficient

declines. For full democracies with a complete range of civil rights, the coefficient is still negative, but no longer significant. This is good

news!! The world has a hell of a lot more democratic governments now than it did in 1931 . What happened in

London, in other words, might prove to be the exception more than the rule. So yes, the recent economic 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.

Global economy resilient

Zakaria 9PhD Poli Sci @ Harvard *Fareed, Editor of Newsweek, The Secrets of Stability, 12/12,Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/id/226425,CMR]

A key measure of fear and fragility is the ability of poor and unstable countries to borrow money on the debt markets. So consider

this: the sovereign bonds of tottering Pakistan have returned 168 percent so far this year. All this doesn't add up to a recovery yet, but it does

reflect a return to some level of normalcy. And that rebound has been so rapid that even the shrewdest observers remain puzzled. "The

question I have at the back of my head is 'Is that it?' " says Charles Kaye, the co-head of Warburg Pincus. "We had this huge crisis, and now

we're back to business as usual?" This revival did not happen because markets managed to stabilize themselves on their own.

Rather, governments, having learned the lessons of the Great Depression, were determined not to repeat the same mistakes once this crisis

hit. Bymassively expanding state support for the economythrough central banks and national treasuriesthey

buffered the worst of the damage. (Whether they made new mistakes in the process remains to be seen.) The

extensive social safety nets that have been established across the industrialized world also cushioned

the pain felt by many. Times are still tough, but things are nowhere near as bad as in the 19 30s , when governments

played a tiny role in national economies. It's true that the massive state interventions of the past year may be fueling some new bubbles: thecheap cash and government guarantees provided to banks, companies, and consumers have fueled some irrational exuberance in stock and

bond markets. Yet theserallies alsodemonstrate the return of confidence, and confidence is a verypowerful

economic force.When John Maynard Keynes described his own prescriptions for economic growth, he believed government action couldprovide only a temporary fix until the real motor of the economy started cranking againthe animal spirits of investors, consumers, and

companies seeking risk and profit. Beyond all this, though, I believe there's a fundamental reason why we have not

faced globalcollapsein the last year. It is the same reason thatwe weathered thestock-marketcrash of 19 87 , the

recession of 19 92 , the Asian crisis of 19 97 , the Russian default of 19 98 , and the tech-bubble

collapseof 2000 .The current global economic system is inherently more resilient than we think . Theworld today is characterized by three major forces for stability, each reinforcing the other and each historical in nature.

Economic decline doesnt cause war people tolerate bad econ, poor countries cantorganize wars, empirical studies prove

Miller 1Professor of Economics [Morris, Professor of Economics, Poverty: A Cause of War?,http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v17n1p08.htm, CMR]

Library shelves are heavy with studies focused on the correlates and causes of war. Some of the leadingscholars in that field suggest that we drop the concept of causality, since it can rarely be demonstrated. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to look

at the motives of war-prone political leaders and the ways they have gained and maintained power, even to the point of leading their nations to

http://www.newsweek.com/id/226425http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v17n1p08.htmhttp://archive.peacemagazine.org/v17n1p08.htmhttp://www.newsweek.com/id/226425

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

6/144

war. Poverty: The Prime Causal Factor? Poverty is most often named as the prime causal factor. Therefore we approach

the question by asking whether poverty is characteristic of the nations or groups that have engaged in wars. As we shall see, poverty has

never been as significant a factor as one would imagine. Largely this is because of the traits of the

poor as a group - particularly their tendency to tolerate their suffering in silence and/or be deterred

by the force of repressive regimes. Their voicelessness and powerlessness translate into passivity.Also,because of their illiteracy and ignorance of worldly affairs, the poor become susceptible to the messages of war-bent demagogues and often

willing to become cannon fodder. The situations conductive to war involve political repression of dissidents, tight control over media that stirup chauvinism and ethnic prejudices, religious fervor, and sentiments of revenge. The poor succumb to leaders who have the power to create

such conditions for their own self-serving purposes. Desperately poor people in poor nations cannot organize wars ,which

are exceptionally costly. The statistics speak eloquently on this point. In the last 40 years the global arms

trade has been about $1500 billion, of which two-thirds were the purchases of developing countries.That is an amount roughly equal to the foreign capital they obtained through official development aid (ODA). Since ODA does not finance arms

purchases (except insofar as money that is not spent by a government on aid-financed roads is available for other purposes such as military

procurement) financing is also required to control the media and communicate with the populace to convince them to support the war. Large-

scale armed conflict is so expensive that governments must resort to exceptional sources, such as drug dealing, diamond smuggling, brigandry,

or deal-making with other countries. The reliance on illicit operations is well documented in a recent World Bank report that studied 47 civil

wars that took place between 1960 and 1999, the main conclusion of which is that the key factor is the availability of commodities to plunder.

For greed to yield war, there must be financial opportunities. Only affluent political leaders and

elites can amass such weaponry,diverting funds to the military even when this runs contrary to the interests of the population. Inmost inter-state wars the antagonists were wealthy enough to build up their armaments and propagandize or repress to gain acceptance for

their policies. Economic Crises? Some scholars have arguedthat it is not poverty, as such, that contributes to the support for armed

conflict, but rather some catalyst, such asan economic crisis. However, a study by Minxin Pei and Ariel

Adesnik shows that this hypothesis lacks merit. After studying 93 episodes of economic crisisin 22

countries in Latin American and Asia since World War II, they concluded that much of the conventional thinking about

the political impact of economic crisis is wrong: "The severity of economic crisis- as measured in terms of

inflation and negative growth - bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes ... or (in democratic states, rarely) to an

outbreak of violence... In the cases of dictatorships and semi-democracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression(thereby using one form of violence to abort another)."

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

7/144

econ 1ncAT: jobs

Jobs recoveringnew high point

Buford 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 reportreleased on Thursday willlikely calm fears about the strength of the

economic recoveryand bolster Democrats arguments that hiring is on the upswing in advance of the mid-term elections. The

economy added 288,000 jobs in June while the unemployment rate dropped to 6.1 percent, the Labor

Department reported Thursday. Analysts had expected job growth of about 215,000, according to a Bloomberg survey of economists. The

unemployment rate is now at its lowest level since September 2008, when the financial crisis hit full stride followingthe failure of Lehman Brothers.

No effect on jobs or oil pricesrecent production trends prove

Krugman 12Nobel 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 oron overall U.S. employment.For the truth is that were

already having a hydrocarbon boom, with U.S. oil and gas production rising and U.S. fuel imports

dropping. If there were any truth to drill-here-drill-now, this boom should have yielded substantially

lower gasoline 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 of shale and other low-permeability rocks has opened

up 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,

its hard to claim that excessive regulation has crippled energy production. Indeed, reporting in The Times makes itclear that U.S. policy has been seriously negligent that the environmental costs of fracking have been underplayed and ignored. But, in a

way, thats the point. The reality is that far from being hobbled by eco-freaks, the energy industry has been given a largely

free hand to expand domestic oil and gas production, never mind the environment.Strange to say, however, while natural

gas prices have dropped, rising oil production and a sharp fall in import dependence havent stopped gasoline

prices from rising toward $4 a gallon. Nor has the oil and gas boom given a noticeable boost to an

economic recovery that, despite better news lately, has been very disappointing on the jobs front.

http://www.politico.com/proreport/0714/proreport14527.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/krugman-natural-born-drillers.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/krugman-natural-born-drillers.htmlhttp://www.politico.com/proreport/0714/proreport14527.html

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

8/144

---ext: jobs recovering

Unemployment declining

VOA 7-3(US Trade Deficit Narrows as Exports Hit Record High, VOA News, 2014,

http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-trade-deficit-narrows-as-export-hit-record-high/1949981.html)

Jobless rate Thursday's report from the Labor Department shows the unemployment rate falling two-tenths of a

percentage point to hit 6.1 percent in June. The study also shows a net gain of 288,000 jobs. The job

growth and the unemployment rate are both better than economists had predicted. An economic advisor to

President Obama said it is the first time since 2000 the economy gained 200,000 jobs per month for five

straight months. But Jason Furman also said many families are still struggling with long-term unemployment and stagnant wages.

http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-trade-deficit-narrows-as-export-hit-record-high/1949981.htmlhttp://www.voanews.com/content/reu-trade-deficit-narrows-as-export-hit-record-high/1949981.html

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

9/144

---ext: drilling no solve jobs

Drilling wont solve job growth empirically any boost is insignificant

Krugman 12Nobel Prize Winner, American economist, Professor of Economics and International

Affairs 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)

Meanwhile, what aboutjobs?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 downto 3.2 percent, but thats

only possible because the whole state has fewer residents than metropolitan Albany so few residents

that adding a few thousand jobs in the states extractive sector is a really big deal . The comparable-sized

fracking boom in Pennsylvania has had hardly any effect on the states overall employment picture,

because, in the end, not that many jobs are involved .And this tells us that givingthe oil companies carte

blanche isnta 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 jobs

deficit is basically a joke .Why, then, are Republicans pretending otherwise? Part of the answer is that the party is rewarding its

benefactors: the oil and gas industry doesnt create many jobs, but it does spend a lot of money on

lobbying and campaign contributions. The rest of the answer is simply the fact that conservatives have no other job-creation ideas tooffer.And intellectual bankruptcy, Im sorry to say, is a problem that no amount of drilling and fracking can solve.

Wont create jobs past decade proves

Farley 12(Allison, Deceive Deny, Delay and Do it all again, April 20,http://westofroanoke.com/2012/04/20/deceive-deny-delay-and-do-it-all-again/,CMR)

What about jobs from digging and drilling? In southwest Virginia, coal mining employment dropped by nearly 60% between 1990and 2009. Sixty percent. That huge job loss happened almost entirely before President Obama took office. In fact much of it occurred during the

eight years of George W Bush and Dick Cheney, whose energy policy was nearly identical to what Mr Griffith proposes.Its the same for the oil

industry. Over the past decade again, most of it pre-Obamathe oil industry shed almost 11,000 jobs, which helped the

big five oil companies earn nearly a trillion dollars in profits during those 10 years. Theres no doubt that more digging and drilling

will make a lot of money for a few senior industry executives. To tout it as a job creation strategy,

however, is pure deception .

Wont solve oil prices or jobs

Jones, 12(Forrest, March 16, 2012, Krugman: More Oil Drilling Won't Help Economy by CreatingJobs http://www.moneynews.com/Markets/Krugman-Oil-Drilling-Economy/2012/03/16/id/432834)

Drillingfor more oil in the United States won't lower pricesat the pump and won't create jobs, says Nobel

economist Paul Krugman . Demand for oil is growing worldwide, and drilling in U.S. territories won't produce

enough oil in a global market to lower prices at the pump, Krugman writes in his New York Times column. "Oil prices

are up because of rising demandfrom China and other emerging economies, andmore recently because of war scaresin the

Middle East; these forces easily outweigh any downward pressure on prices from rising U.S. production,"

Krugman writes. Meanwhile, the oil industry wouldn't create more jobs.Take North Dakota, where an energy boom is playing

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/krugman-natural-born-drillers.htmlhttp://westofroanoke.com/2012/04/20/deceive-deny-delay-and-do-it-all-again/http://westofroanoke.com/2012/04/20/deceive-deny-delay-and-do-it-all-again/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/krugman-natural-born-drillers.html

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

10/144

out. Proponents of more drilling argue low unemployment in North Dakotashould serve as model for overall U.S. energy policy. "Yes, the

oil boom there has pushed unemployment down to 3.2 percent, but thats only possiblebecause the whole

state has fewer residents than metropolitan Albany so few residents that adding a few thousand jobs

in the states extractive sector is a really big deal ," Krugman says. Natural gas fracking, meanwhile, hasn't mademuch

of a dent in Pennsylvania's employment rates . Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has said oil prices serve as a hurdle to U.S.economic recovery, especially with Europe's fate remaining murky. "We're going to need to keep a close eye on oil and Iran and gas prices plus

we've got to make sure Europe keeps moving to sustain its progress," Geithner told the Economic Club of New York, according to Reuters.

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

11/144

econ 1ncAT: trade deficit

SQUO solves energy trade deficit

Donilon 14(Tom, American lawyer and former government official who served as National Security

Advisor in the Obama administration, We're No. 1 (and We're Going to Stay That Way), Why theprophets of American decline are wrong,

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/we_re_no_1_and_we_re_going_to_stay_that_way

_american_decline)

Meanwhile, the reduction of energy imports has brought our trade deficit to a four-year low , which allows a

greater share of the money Americans spend on energy to remain within the country. Wealso now have the opportunity for the

export of both natural gas and crude oil to the world, which will support our allies, stabilize the

world's energy supply, and expand our own prosperity.

Overall trade deficit shrinkingensures overall recovery

VOA 7-3(US Trade Deficit Narrows as Exports Hit Record High, VOA News, 2014,http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-trade-deficit-narrows-as-export-hit-record-high/1949981.html)

The U.S. trade deficit narroweda bit more than expectedin May as exports jumped to a record high, and the

U.S. unemployment rate dropped to its lowest level in nearly six years. The Commerce Department said on Thursday the trade gap fell

5.6 percent to $44.4 billion, indicating the U.S. economy is benefiting from a strengthening global

recovery, data released Thursday showed. April's trade deficit was revised slightly down to $47.0 billion. The narrowing of the

trade deficit in May followed five straight months of increases. "The improvement in U.S. exports seen

in the May trade data suggests that the world economic recovery is gaining traction," said Tu Packard ofMoody's Analytics, as reported by the French news agency AFP. Exceeded expectations Economists polled by Reuters had expected the trade

deficit to narrow to $45 billion in May from a previously reported $47.2 billion shortfall, suggesting trade could be less of a drag on

second-quarter growth than earlier feared. When adjusted for inflation, the deficit narrowed to $51.96 billion from $53.88

billion in April. Trade subtracted 1.5 percentage points from first-quarter gross domestic product. The economy contracted at a 2.9 percent

annual pace in the first three months of the year. In May, exports increased 1 percent to a record high of $195.5

billion. Exports were driven by a surge in automobiles, parts and engines, which rose to a record high. Exports of consumer goods were also

the highest on record. Imports fell 0.3 percent to $239.8 billion as petroleum imports tumbled to their lowest level since

November 2010. Non-petroleum imports, however, hit a record high in May.

Wont solve the trade deficit makes it worse by trading off with renewables

innovation

Rusnak 12(Karl, Drilling Wont Fix Our Trade Deficit, May 9,http://economyincrisis.org/content/drilling-cant-solve-our-trade-deficit,CMR)

In a recent post on Forbes.com, contributor Tim Worstall put forth the dubious idea that we may be able to turn our trade deficit into a tradesurplus through the exploitation of Americas fossil fuels. Drilling our way out of high gas prices and dependence on OPEC is popular in right

wing circles, but the idea that we can restore our balance of trade with oil and gas takes the delusion to a

new level . Worstall claims that *i+ts not inconceivable that the U.S. will start to run a sustained trade surplus for the first time in [his]

adult lifetime. There are certainly ways to make this happen, but short-sighted thinking and reliance on fossil fuels will

not make this prediction a reality.Oil imports currently account for approximately half of our nations$560 billion trade deficit.U.S. oil and gas production has increased recently with advances in drilling technology that have allowed us to access new sources of energy,

but we are still net importers of both oil and natural gas.We are closing the gap between production and consumption in

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/we_re_no_1_and_we_re_going_to_stay_that_way_american_declinehttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/we_re_no_1_and_we_re_going_to_stay_that_way_american_declinehttp://www.voanews.com/content/reu-trade-deficit-narrows-as-export-hit-record-high/1949981.htmlhttp://economyincrisis.org/content/drilling-cant-solve-our-trade-deficithttp://economyincrisis.org/content/drilling-cant-solve-our-trade-deficithttp://www.voanews.com/content/reu-trade-deficit-narrows-as-export-hit-record-high/1949981.htmlhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/we_re_no_1_and_we_re_going_to_stay_that_way_american_declinehttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/we_re_no_1_and_we_re_going_to_stay_that_way_american_decline

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

12/144

natural gas, but the disparity in oil is still much larger. The United States consumes 19,150,000 barrels of oil a day while

currently producing only about 5.5 million barrels per day. Even with the new sources of oil , the U.S. Energy

Information Administration estimates that we will only be producing 6.7 million barrels per day by 2020, while

consumption is expected to rise.It is clear that fossil fuel production will not save us in the short term , and

depending on fossil fuels for our economic well-being in the future would be foolhardy . While we arelearning to harness more of our available reserves, the world will inevitably move away from oil and gas. Many countries have set specific goals

for the move away from fossil fuels. For instance, the European Union has set a target of obtaining 20 percent of its energy from renewable

sources by 2020, up from the 9 percent it achieved in 2009. With power grids shifting to alternative energy sources and increasingly efficient

cars and buses hitting the market regularly, the idea that oil and gas will be the area of energy production that is most profitable in the future is

questionable.Drilling our way to energy independence is partisan rhetoric, not a real solution to either our

energy or economic problems. If we want to think about energy independence and the trade deficit, we should be concerned with

things such as the fact that China is subsidizing its solar industry to undercut the pricing of our domestic manufacturers. Domestic fossil

fuel production may make a dent in our trade deficit, but it will not eliminate it and a focus on drilling

over innovation in renewable sources may hurt the United States long term. There are much better ways

to fix our economy than pretending that we can drill our way to prosperity.

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

13/144

--ext: no trade deficit

US trade deficit shrinking

Buford 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)

U.S. TRADE DEFICIT SHRANK IN MAY TO $44.4 BILLION : The decline resulted from a rise in exports and

a drop in imports. U.S. exports rose slightly to $195.5 billion, while imports fell by a smaller amount to

$239.9 billion. May exports of goods set a record high of $135.7 billion. Record highs were also set for autos and auto parts and forconsumer goods. Non-petroleum imports were the highest on record at $169.5 billion, while the value of petroleum imports was the lowest

since November 2010 at $27.2 billion. More from Doug Palmer:http://politico.pro/1mODK3J

http://www.politico.com/proreport/0714/proreport14527.htmlhttp://politico.pro/1mODK3Jhttp://politico.pro/1mODK3Jhttp://www.politico.com/proreport/0714/proreport14527.html

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

14/144

econ 1ncAT: revenue

Economic benefits overstated

Solomon 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.The

C ongressional B udget O ffice found the potential revenue from expandedoffshore and onshore drilling may be

less of a budgetary boon than lawmakers hope. Immediately opening most federal lands to oil and gas

leasing, including Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, would yieldabout $7 billionin additional receipts overthe 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 andgas drilling is now restricted on some federal lands, including ANWR and sections of the Outer Continental Shelf, which consists of submerged

lands off the Atlantic, Pacific and Florida coastlines. Lawmakers -- particularly those in coastal states like Virginia and Louisiana -- have asked

Obama to allow expanded drilling for economic reasons, saying leases and royalties will provide much-needed revenue.In July, a group of

bipartisan lawmakers proposed legislation to open drilling in ANWR and the outer-continental shelf, saying it would create jobs, produce

revenue and reduce dependence on foreign sources of oil.The potential amount of money has seemed tantalizing. The U.S. is expected to

realize $150 billion over 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, including how much oil is found, its future price and any revenue-sharing deals cut with

coastal states.

http://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.html

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

15/144

econ 2nclink turn

The economic costs outweigh any benefit

Moriarty 11(Jim, The Economic Case Against Offshore Drilling, Jan 14,

http://www.theinertia.com/politics/the-economic-case-against-offshore-drilling/, CMR)

Lets start by establishing the value of the coastlineswere talking about in the United States. Coastal tourismin 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 wed see that it doesntmake 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 summers horrific BP spill delivered an economic hit that will be in

the billions of dollars to the Gulf Coast.Now lets look at how much oil is potentially available offshore related tohow muchwe use and need.The United States is a massive user of other countries oil. We have less than 3% of the worlds oil reserves and yet we use

over 20% of the worlds 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 dont have enough oil everywhere in theUnited 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 24 million barrels a day.Increased offshore drilling

cant get us off foreign oil anymore than a half a talk of gas in your car cant magically act like a full tank.We dont 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.We have to wait several years in order to experience a small amount of relief at the pump? And while were waiting for

relief at the pump, we would be harming our economy and environment by drilling

http://www.theinertia.com/politics/the-economic-case-against-offshore-drilling/http://www.theinertia.com/politics/the-economic-case-against-offshore-drilling/

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

16/144

econ 2ncsmall effect

Economic benefits too small

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)

Even though increased domestic oil production wouldprobably not enhance U.S. energy security as defined inthis report, policymakers

might choose to evaluate theneed for increased production according to other criteria.For example, increased domestic

productionon federallands would raise royalty payments to the federal governmentandthus have a

positive budgetary effect. To theextent that increases in domestic production reduced theprice of oil, they would also lessen therevenues earned byoil-producing countries that are hostile toward theUnited States. Increased production of domestic oil couldreduce

imports of oil as long as U.S. consumption didnot step up by a corresponding amount. Moreover,increaseddomestic oil production

could boost employmentand outputin the United States. The short-termeffects of such changes, however,

would probably be smallrelative to the size of the U.S. economy.40 Increaseddomestic production would also havenegative consequences,such as a higher risk of spills and otherenvironmental impacts.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdfhttp://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdf

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

17/144

transition 1ncfails

No transition to alternativescost and self interest

Polczer, 11(Shaun, North American Editor, Petroleum Economist Magazine at Euromoney Institutional

Investor, April 2011, Renewable energy still too expensive, says report,http://www.cges.co.uk/media/articles/2011/04/07/renewable-energy-still-too-expensive-says-report)

Despite high oil prices, fossil fuels will continue to trump renewable energy sources such as solar and

wind power without massive government subsidies, a new investment bank says.A report by Calgary-based AltaCorp

Capital says the economic realities of oil and natural gas mean that the world will remain largely

dependent on non-renewable energy sources for the foreseeable future. Author John Mawdsley said he didnt setout to make a case for oil and gas, but found that hydrocarbon fuels are by far the most cost efficient on an energy equivalent basis compared

to solar, biofuels and wind power.We didnt have any particular bias, but we were surprised by some of the things we found, he said in an

interview.Despite massive government subsidies, so-called green energy such as wind, solar, and

biomass accounts for about four per cent of global energy consumption.On an barrel of oil equivalent

basis, an equal amount of solar power would cost about $450 a barrel even after factoring carbon

dioxide costs of about $50 per tonnewhich Mawdsley noted is more than double the current price of emission credits inEurope and three times higher than the Alberta governments $15 per tonne levy on emissions.In that context, expensive oil sources such as

the oilsands remain relatively cheap. Due to the practical and economic realities, we believe high oil prices are

here to stay,which will continue to make Canadas conventional oil and oilsands companies attractive investments.There are alsoethical considerations. Even though corn-based ethanol and soya biodiesel are cheaper than nuclear power and coal-fired electrical generation,

Mawdsley notes that the amount of land under fuel cultivation in the U.S. is enough to feed 150 million people.Electrical cars might reduce

tailpipe emissions, but could be considered coal-fired if they increase demand for dirtier burning electricity. There are trade-offs, he said.

AltaCorp. is the new investment bank and research house formed by Tristone Capital founder George Gosbee late last year. The firm, which is

partially owned by ATB Financial, has a mandate to invest in emerging Alberta companies in the areas of energy, alternative energy and

agriculture.Mawdsley said the comparison highlights the economic disparities between energy sources, but also the opportunities for

innovators to reduce the gap on some of the higher cost energy sources.The report also notes the tragedy of the hydrocarbons, where

cheap oil and gas discourages a transition to cleaner fuels. The tragedy lies in the reality that people will continue to use

and deplete the non-renewable hydrocarbons even though it is not in the best long-term interest of the

individual society, mankind or the planet for this to continue.

Renewable energies are ineffective and cost too much

Forbes, 11(September 19, 2011, More False Hope About Renewable Energies That ConsumersReject, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/09/19/more-false-hope-about-renewable-

energies-that-consumers-reject/2/)

Americans seek affordable energyand expect greater fiscal prudence from Washington. Yetthe Obamaadministration

continues to touteconomically failing, deficit-swelling renewables as the elixirto our economic and energy needs.Green jobs

is the code word for the ruse, which is nothing more than artificial job creation for energies that consumers emphatically reject.Dont be

fooledby the political hype. Alternative energy sources fail the cost, reliability, and scalability tests. Whether it is

ethanol for transportation or wind and solar for electricity, politically correct energies are an economic drain.Wind and

solar, in particular, are touted as the energy sources of the future . But entrepreneurs have tried to harness both forcenturies. Their limited utility and obstacles, documented since the 1800s, explain why wind and solar make up just

a tiny portion of our energy supply today despite a quarter-century of highly preferential taxpayer and

ratepayer subsidy.The problem concerns the vicissitudes of weather, which makes wind and solar inherently

unreliable and unsuitable for todays energy-intensive economy.Wind turbinesproduce at maximum capacity during a range of wind

speeds typically 30 to 55 mph. At slower speeds, electrical output falls dramatically. If wind speeds fall by half, production

decreases by a factor of eight.Therefore, turbines scarcely produce at capacity. In fact, theannual output of a

turbine averages just 20% to 30% of capacity . And about 10% to 15% of the time, these turbines produce virtually no power at

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

18/144

all.Solar energy is equally dependent on weatherit doesnt work at night without a storage device, and even during

the day, cloud coverage can make the technology stall.A general solar panel will produce eight to ten watts of energy per

square foot. Thats during periods of direct sunlight, which is about five hours per day.For the amount of energy that solar and

wind produce, their start-up and ongoing operating costs are exorbitant.

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

19/144

EOR Fails

Benefits from EOR are insignificant

Cobb 10(Kurt, Will enhanced oil recovery be an oil supply savior?, March 25,

http://www.energybulletin.net/52137, CMR)

To read ExxonMobil Corporation's website one might get the impression that the world's largest oil and gas company has begun only recently

to employ enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques. If that were true, this industry bellwether might have been able to say that these

techniques will have a substantial effect on the future flow of oil. After all, the claim for EOR is that it could potentially double the amount of oil

we can get out of the Earth--from the current one-third to two-thirds or so of the original oil in place. The implication is that not only will future

wells yield more of their oil than previous ones, but that far more oil can now be harvested from existing wells.The big problem with this

thesis is that EOR is already being widely applied--so much so that the Oil & Gas Journal will sell you its most recent worldwidesurvey of EOR projects for only $330. You can get the full historical database all the way back to 1986 for a mere $1,100. (Hint: Both contain

more than a few entries.)The three main types of EORare gas injection, steam (both cyclic stimulation and flooding), and chemical

injection, and they'vebeen around for a long time. The poster child for EOR among the oil optimists is the Kern River Oil Field nearBakersfield, California. Kern was discovered in 1899. As production waned, steamflooding was introduced in 1964. In 1961 production was

about 19,000 barrels per day. By 1966 it had risen to 53,000 barrels per day. Production reached its peak at 141,000 barrels per day in 1985.

Production continues today at around 80,000 barrels per day.The Kern River steamflood has proven how well EORcan work in some

situations. But as any reader will deduce, the results are already reflected in current production and reserveestimates. Steamflooding has been in use for a very long time.Natural gas injection is also an old technique used to maintain reservoirpressures. It has been used continuously, for example, at Alaska's Prudhoe Bay Oil F ield which began shipping oil in 1977. Nitrogen injection is

newer, but has been used, for example, since 2000 on the huge Cantarell Field in the Mexican portion of the Gulf of Mexico. Results were

excellent at first. But the subsequent crash of production at Cantarell has called into question whether this form of EOR merely hastened

production without increasing ultimate recovery.The same issue has been raised by another technique called maximum recovery contact

wells, which is often grouped with EOR. The technique worked superlatively for a while in Oman's largest oil field only to lead to a precipitous

crash in production later.Carbon dioxide injection hasalso been usedsuccessfully, but supplies are expensive if

they are not near the field. The newest of the major EOR techniques involves inoculating reservoirs with microbes that will make theoil flow more freely. It looks promising.Oil company sources tell me that indeed these techniques are used wherever practical. Limitations

include high capital and operating costs. For example, Cantarell's nitrogen injection system cost $6 billion to build. Other limits may result from

the existing infrastructure. For instance, willthat infrastructure be able to handle additional production? And, if not,

what would it cost to upgrade it?High costs almost always mean high energy inputs . Even ifthe

capital and expertise is available, it may cost more energy to implement an EOR program than will be

gained from the extra oil. Inevitably, the energy return on investment for oil obtained using EOR will

be lower, often far lower, than oil obtained using standard methods .Oil supply optimists often talk about doublingaverage recovery from oil wells. But B. J. Doyle, vice president of operations for a small Houston-based oil and natural gas exploration company,

cautions against such talk. Every reservoir is unique. This meansthat 1) many reservoirs will simply not benefit

from EOR and2) the increase in recovery when EOR is applied can vary widely.In addition, Doyle says, there

are fields where the techniques won't be applied until small operators take over. After large oil companies get themajority of oil out of a field, they often find it's not worth their while to continue pumping. Frequently, they sell their interests to smaller

operators who have the willingness and patience to squeeze out the final barrels using a variety of techniques, some of which wouldn't

necessarily qualify as EOR.In places such as the United States and Canada this happens as a matter of course. That's why these countries have

so many operating wells, many of which pump fewer than 10 barrels a day. But this pattern of exploitation in mature oil fields is only happening

in these countries because they allow private ownership of oil rights. In places such as Nigeria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, private companies cannot

simply purchase or lease mineral rights from the owner because the owner is the government. In Iran and Saudi Arabia, the government hastotal control over the oil industry. There is no entrepreneurial class of small operators able to take over largely exhausted fields and revive

them. That means that in many of the most oil-rich places in the world, EOR on the scale practiced in the United States and Canada will

probably never become a reality.Energy writer Chris Nelder gives us perspective on what we can expect from EOR. He writes that

history shows us that EOR "does not affect the date of the peak, nor the peak rate of production. It typically justextends the 'tail' on the back end of the curve and increases the ultimately recoverable total."

http://www.energybulletin.net/52137http://www.energybulletin.net/52137

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

20/144

EOR projections overblown

Standing 7(Tom, A dose of reality for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projection, Oct 29,http://www.energybulletin.net/node/36384, CMR)

The October 1 Commentary showed a huge discrepancy between theNational Petroleum Councils (NPC) projection for

enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and the history of actual EOR results. NPC projectedthat EOR productionworldwide would reach 20

million b/d in 2030 (1). Such a projection is unachievable given that actual production was 1.8 million b/d in 2006. In the U.S. where EOR was pioneered, EOR

production peaked in1992at761,000 b/d, and slipped to 649,300 b/d by2006(2). With their projection, NPC

perpetuates the misguided beliefthat EOR might be successfully applied to the full spectrum of oil

fields worldwide, thus extracting additional oil from formations that have been depleted of primary and secondary reserves. Royal Dutch Shell promoted the same belief in 2006.In its webcast, Shell declared that extracting an additional 10 percent of original oil in place (OOIP) from the worlds oil fields with EOR, also called tertiary recovery, would yield another 500

billion barrels of oil (3).Shells statement is merely hypothetical , with little resemblance to reality. In a series of Commentaries here, we will see that

EOR processes have been narrowly confined to only two categories of resources. Highly permeable reservoirs containingheavy, viscous oil respond to thermal methods, e.g., steam injection. Reservoirs with poor permeability containing light oil respond to carbon dioxide or nitrogen injection at miscible

pressures. Reviewing how the industry methodically developed EOR technologies over 50+ years reveals EORs high level of maturity. Consequently, EOR development in the U.S. is a

powerful indicator of where EORcan be applied to oil resources worldwide, and where applications have negligible potential .

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/36384http://www.energybulletin.net/node/36384

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

21/144

***a2 oil dependency/geopolitics

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

22/144

1ncno 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 increasethe domestic production of oil could lower worldoil prices

over the long run (though the effect wouldprobably be small), but they would probably not reduce the vulnerabilityof U.S.

households and businesses to disruptions in oil supplies. Such policies could includeopening more of the Outer

Continental Shelf or theArctic to drilling, expediting regulatory approvalof applications to drill, or reducing the fees charged toprivatefirms (for example, the royalties paid to thegovernment for each barrel of oil produced) when thegovernment makes oil underlying federal

lands availablefor extraction.34

Those policies would probably increase the amount of oilbrought to the world market, which would lower worldoil prices for the time thatthe additional supply wasavailable. The magnitude of the price reduction woulddepend on the volume of oil produced and the responseby

other countries to the introduction of the new supply.To illustrate, the Energy Information Administration(EIA) estimates that opening the

Arctic National WildlifeRefuge to drilling could boost domestic oil production byas much as 0.5 to 1.5 million barrels per day (an increaseof

9 percent to 27 percent of U.S. production based on2010 production levels), which could lower world oilprices by $0.41 to $1.44 per barrel

in 2025, relative to abase case in which oil was $65 per barrel and assuming nochange in oil production elsewhere in the world; thatdecline

would be expected to reduce gasoline prices by1 to 3 cents per gallon.35 Production would not commenceuntil 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 morequickly (within a few years), but deepwater oil fields areexpected to have the largest quantity

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

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

inoutput from other large oil-producing countries, resultingin little observable change in the price of

oil.Forexample, Khalid Al Falih, chief executive officer of SaudiAramco, recently said that Saudi Arabia would reduce its

planned output capacity expansion given massive capacityexpansions coming outof countries like Brazil[and]Iraq.36

Thus, increasing production in the United States mightnot increase the worlds oil supply substantially or

lowerthe price of oil significantly. For example, oil and gasolineprices have not fallen over the past few years

despite anincrease in U.S. oil productionduring that period. Moreover,because any new productive capacityin

the UnitedStates would be controlled by private firms and not thegovernment(as it is for OPEC members), that

newcapacity would be used in amounts determined by theowners and notnecessarily held as spare

capacity to offsetdisruptions.U.S. government agencies estimate that the amount of oilthat is technically feasible to recover in the United Statesis 162 billion barrels (22

billion barrels of which hasalready been discovered); according to recent estimates,technically recoverable oil resources in the United

Statesare equivalent to 78 years of supply at 2010 domestic production levels, or 29 years of supply if produced at thelevel of current

consumption.37 Determining the effecton world pricesof finding and producing additional oil isdifficult, given the

uncertainty inherent in bringing theoil to market and the possible reaction of other oil producing

countries.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdfhttp://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdf

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

23/144

OCS drilling wont solve energy dependence or prices empirics, lack of supply, and

magnitude

Altaffer 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)

The nearly 30-year moratorium on oil drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf will expire on September 30th, and President Bush

opposes its extension. Nonetheless, offshore oil drilling in areas that have been off-limits since 1982 is not the way to solve

our energy crisis . There are many reasons that offshore drilling in sensitive coastal areas is a bad idea. These 10 are only the beginning:

1. We cant drill our way out of the energy crisis.According to a report by the House Committee on Natural Resources

Majority Staff:Between1999and2007, the number of drilling permits issuedfor development of public lands

increased by more than 361 percent, yet gasoline prices havealso risen dramatically, contradicting the

argument that more drilling means lower gasoline prices. There is simply no correlation between the two.

2. We dont have enough oil to meet our demand.The U.S. oil supply-demand balance is

insurmountable . We have less than 2 percent of the worlds known reserves, yet use 25 percent of its

oil. Even ifwe 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.Whyopen up new areas to drilling when oil companies hold over 4,000 undeveloped leases in the western Gulf of Mexico? Whats more, the

government already leases 44 million acres offshore, of which only 10.5 millionor one quarterare 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 marketany impact on

average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

Production is too expensive and any benefit is 20 years away

Altaffer 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)

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

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

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

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

five years for oil production to begin. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil

production or price until nearly 20 years after leasing begins.

Lack of drilling equipmentAltaffer 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.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.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.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/

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

24/144

7. There isnt enough drilling equipment .Due to the high price of oil, existing drilling ships are booked solid

for the next five years , and demand for deepwater rigs has driven up the price of such ships. Oil companies just dont

have the resources to explore oil fields in the OCS.

Lack of refineries

Altaffer 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)

8. We cantrefine 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 long -term

business.

Zero chance the AFF effects oil dependence or prices

Plumer 12(Brad, True oil independence is an unrealistic dream , 5/10,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/oil-independence-is-an-impossible-

dream/2012/05/10/gIQAy2EoFU_blog.html, CMR)

Over the past few years, the United States has experienced a boom in oil and gas production. And thats led a few commentators to declare that the country is on the verge of ending its

dependence on foreign energy and supply disruptions. Alas, thats never fully possible . 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 ifthe United States does become the worlds

biggest producer of oil, natural gas and biofuelsby 2020 an impressive achievement, for sure wed 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 . But heres the

kicker: Even ifthe United States goes further andsomehow manages to produce every last drop of the oil and gas it

needs to run its economy, the country would still be vulnerable toevents in the Middle East, tensions in Iran, strikes in Venezuela and

other disruptions in the oil markets. To see why, heres an interesting chart from a new report out of the Congressional Budget Office on energy security. It looks athow gasoline prices have moved in Japan, Canada and the United States in the past decade: These three countries are all in very different oil situations. Canada is a net exporter of oil its

achieved the dream of oil independence. The United States, by contrast, still imports around 60 percent of its crude. And Japan imports just about all of its crude. Yet gasoline prices

have followed the same pattern for all countries, rising and falling as global events dictate. (The absolute levels are a

bit different among the different countries because of taxes and fees.) That shouldnt be surprising. As the CBO explains, oil prices are set by the global oil

market. Disruptions in oil production in one country will cause the world oil market to readjust so that

all countries and firms continue to receive oil at the new prevailing price . Even if the United States produced

100 percent of its own oil, the price would still go up if rising demand from China outstripped the ability

of supplies to keep up. The price would still go up if Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz. And so on.

The only way the United States could completely shield itself from global swings in price, the CBO notes, is by cutting itself off from

the world oil markets and preventing its domestic producers from ever selling crude abroad. Even then,

CBO notes, this could only work if the United States kept discovering large new domestic fields and couldsomehow

force multinational oil companies to keep investing in the United States even if they found it unprofitable to

do so. In other words, its an unrealistic goal . Now, its true that more production in the United States could, potentially, increase the worlds overall supply of oil,

lowering the absolute price of crude a bit. But even here, the CBO is doubtful that more U.S. production would have a large impact

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.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/oil-independence-is-an-impossible-dream/2012/05/10/gIQAy2EoFU_blog.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/oil-independence-is-an-impossible-dream/2012/05/10/gIQAy2EoFU_blog.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/oil-independence-is-an-impossible-dream/2012/05/10/gIQAy2EoFU_blog.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/oil-independence-is-an-impossible-dream/2012/05/10/gIQAy2EoFU_blog.htmlhttp://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/

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

25/144

on global pricesmost likely, producers in other countries would cut back on production in response , diminishing

or eliminating the effect . (Saudi Arabia, for instance, recently announced that it would reduce a planned drilling expansion because of increased pro duction in Brazil andIraq.)

Even if you lowered prices it would encourage greater use of oil equalizing the aff

Stocking, 12(Andrew, May 9, 2012, CBO Macroeconomic Studies, U.S. budget office finds producingmore domestic oil wont minimize pain at pump; using less will,http://theenergycollective.com/jimpierobon/86881/fast-fix-us-budget-office-finds-producing-more-

domestic-oil-won-t-minimize-pain-pump)

Policies that promoted greater production of oil in the United States would probably not protect U.S.

consumers from sudden worldwide increases in oil prices, even if increased production lowered the

world price of oil on an ongoing basis. In fact, such lower prices would encourage greater use of oil , thus

making consumers more vulnerable to increases in oil prices. Even if the United States increased production and became

a net exporter of oil, U.S. consumers would still be exposed to gasoline prices that rose and fell in response to

disruptions around the world.

Cant solve dependence we cant access most oil and wed run out in three yars

Kolbe 11(Matt, e-how contributor, Problems With Offshore Drilling, Jan 19,http://www.ehow.co.uk/list_7147109_disadvantages-drilling-oil.html, CMR)

ImpracticalOffshore drilling, at least in America, is fairly impractical. According to NorthByNorthwestern.com, if the U.S.

hypothetically used all of the oil available through offshore drilling and no foreign oil, we'd run out in

less than three years. Of course, in reality this isn't even possible, since there's no way to access much of

the oil and to do so would take way too long. The United States Energy Information Administration says that if the process

of drilling for oil is started in 2012, no economic advantage will be realized until around 2030. With such

a low return on investment over such a long period of time, offshore drilling is very impractical, especiallygiven the damage it can cause.

http://www.ehow.co.uk/list_7147109_disadvantages-drilling-oil.htmlhttp://www.ehow.co.uk/list_7147109_disadvantages-drilling-oil.html

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

26/144

2ncno solvency

[work in progresskeep in mind some of the 1nc args arent block]

Extend Plumbereven large-scale drilling wouldnt solve dependence becausevulnerability to crises and high demand on the global market is inevitablealso wont

affect price levels because countries will just cut back their own production

Extend Stockingincreased production will just encourage people to use oil more

frequently, offsetting any short-term drop in pricesmakes vulnerability to oil shocks

inevitable

Any benefit from the aff is minimalonly our evidence quantifiesthe effect

Weissmann 12associate editor at The Atlantic (Jordan, The Myth of Energy Independence: WhyWe Can't Drill Our Way to Oil Autonomy, Feb 9,

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-myth-of-energy-independence-why-we-cant-drill-our-way-to-oil-autonomy/252812/,CMR)

If you're not too concerned about how much carbon gets pumped into the atmosphere over the next few decades, these are all great developments. (If you do care about global warming,

these are all reasons to have a stiff drink, and perhaps consider moving far from the coasts). But even if we're approaching energy independence,

the chances of ever actually getting there arerather slim , especially if our economy is still running on oil in 20 years. MANAGE YOUREXPECTATIONS It may theoretically be possible for the U.S. and Canada to more than double our oil output, as the NPC suggests. To put that in perspective, we'd be adding the rough

equivalent of another Saudi Arabia to the world oil market. To do it, the countries would have to pretty much tap every resource they have, both onshore and off. Obviously, the old "drill baby

drill" crowd would love that approach. But it's' still controversial in coastal swing states like Florida. Beyond that, accessingsome of the resources would require

technology we don't have yet . In the most likely scenarios, North American oil production will get a big boost in the coming

years. It just won't be enough for us to start waving goodbye to OPEC. The U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts that the American oil production will reach6.7 million barrels a day by 2020, up from 5.5 million in 2010, then drop back to 6.1 million by 2035. Canada's National Energy Board foresees future production doubling to 6.0 million barrels

per day by that year. So we'd end up withabout 12.1 million barrels a day, around two-thirds* of what the United Statescurrently chugsthrough on its own. But let's not be realistic for a moment. Let's assume the U.S. and Canada did manage to drill enough

oil that we could tell Saudi Arabia to take it's light sweet crude and shove it. What then? Well, we'd still be exposed to all the ugliness of the

global oil market . American and Candadian crude would be priced just like everywhere else -- based on what

the world's highest bidders are willing to pay for it. Americans would continue to feel pain at the pump

every time a war broke out in the Middle East or African militants blew up a pipeline . WHAT WE CAN EXPECT This isn'tto say there wouldn't be benefits to greater energy independence. Because natural gas is so difficult to ship, it's not sold on a truly global market, so a big supply at home means cheaper

prices. Our abundance of gas has already started luring manufacturers back to the United States in industries, such as chemicals, that rely on it for production. Domestic oil supplies would also

help our trade balance. Crude imports account for 44% of the U.S. current account deficit, and buying oil from North Dakota instead of, say, Nigeria would obviously shrink that figure. But it

wouldstill be wise to moderate our hopes, both about North America's ability to drill its way to energy

independence,and about what that would even accomplish. Perhaps we can cut down on what we buy from the Middle East. Perhaps we can cut it down significantly. Butbelieving that will save us from the world's problems? That's still just a dream.

Massive production now proves domestic production does nothing to affect prices

Conathan, 12(Michael, Director of Ocean Policy at Center for American Progress, March 1, 2012,More Drilling Wont Lower Gas Prices, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/01/435330/more-

drilling-wont-lower-gas-prices/)

In an introductory economics class, the first thing the teacher sketches out on the blackboard is a strikingly simplistic graph: two curves making

a swooping X between the two axesthe economic model of supply and demand. The basic underlying principle is simple: The point at

which the supply curve and the demand curve meet will determine the price of the commodity.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-myth-of-energy-independence-why-we-cant-drill-our-way-to-oil-autonomy/252812/http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-myth-of-energy-independence-why-we-cant-drill-our-way-to-oil-autonomy/252812/http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/01/435330/more-drilling-wont-lower-gas-prices/http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/01/435330/more-drilling-wont-lower-gas-prices/http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-myth-of-energy-independence-why-we-cant-drill-our-way-to-oil-autonomy/252812/http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-myth-of-energy-independence-why-we-cant-drill-our-way-to-oil-autonomy/252812/

8/12/2019 Ocs Neg - Mgw - 2014

27/144

Increasing supply when demand remains constant will cause prices to fall. This fundamental concept is widelyunderstood by anyone who has sat through those Econ 101 lectures, and anyone whos ever noticed a parking lot near a major sports venue

jack up its prices on game day can easily relate. The concept is also the driving force behind the 2012 conservative reincarnation of Michael

Steele and Sarah Palins favorite 2008 campaign slogan: drill, baby, drill.If the solution were so simple, then the problem

of rising gasoline prices wouldnt existwere already drilling like crazy in the United States. And yet

prices have continued to spike . As my colleague Daniel J. Weiss explains, the reasons for the recent price increase

are myriad and include political instability in the Persian Gulf, the influence of financial speculators, and

increasing worldwide demand as economies recover. Yet many conservatives are dusting off their old bumper stickers andtouting more drilling as the sole solution to high prices at the pump. One Republican presidential contender, former Speaker of the House Newt

Gingrich, is on the campaign trail promising that if elected hell get the price of gasoline back to a nationwide average of $2.50 per gallon. Yet

even in a 29-minute infomercial-style speech, he couldnt find the time to address any of the reasons why more drilling will not lead to lower

prices.Gingrich simply trumpets the misguided talking points of building the Keystone XL pipeline, tapping shale oil in the upper Midwest, and

of course opening more areas to offshore drilling. He then leaves it to his audience to make the assumption that supply-side economics will

work its voodoo magic, and presto-change-o, well all be able to drive Hummers and have enough cash left over to put a latte in every

cupholder.By contrast, President Barack Obamadelivered an address on energy last Thursday in which he made

the less politically expedient but actually realistic proclamation that there is no silver bullet that will

solve our energy problem. He further suggested anyone who pitches the idea that drilling alone will

lower gas prices doesnt know what theyre talking about or just isnt telling you the truth .If

increasing oil drilling lowered gas prices, wed know it already. When President Obama took office in 2009, there werefewer than 400 drilling rigs operating in the United States, a number that dwindled to fewer than 200 by April 2009. Since then, even as his

administration conducted a wholesale review of drilling regulations in the aftermath of the worst offshore oil spill in the nations historythe

BP Deepwater Horizon oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexicothe number of oil rigs operating in the United States has

quadrupled.But that massive influx of supply has done nothing to reduce the price we pay to top up our

tanks.As fundamental as the law of supply and demand might be to macroeconomic theory, the on-the-ground reality is that more drilling

will not lower gas prices. Heres why:It hasnt worked yet. There are currently more oil rigs operating on U.S. lands and

waters than in the rest of the world combined, production is at aneight-year high,and the most recent Short-Term Energy Outlook from the Energy Information Administration projects production to continue growing at least through 2013 based on

current activity. By the end of President Obamas recently issued five-year drilling plan, fully 75 percent of our undiscovered, technically

recoverable offshore reserves will be open to drilling. All that additional activity hasnt stemmed the recent gas price spike.If oil

companies wanted to increase production, they could. In March 2011 the Department of the Interior

released a report revealing two-thirds of oil-and-gas companies offshore leases and more than half of

their onshore leases are not being produced.

Even if we drilled all the oil it cant solve

Craig, 12(Michael, Energy Analyst at Oceana, May 23, 2012, Its a Fact: Domestic Drilling DoesntAffect Gas Prices, http://oceana.org/en/blog/2012/05/it-s-a-fact-domestic-drilling-doesn-t-affect-gas-

prices)

The two new reports provide much-needed objective and nonpartisan analysesof this crucial question, and

come to the same, clear conclusion: providing relief at the pump to U.S. consumers can only be achieved