Oil
Drilling in ANWAR
by Rhiannon
Carlson and Elaine Durr
1ST negative SH1-
Dependency on Foreign Oil Why is this harmful? -According to basic
economic principles, it is better to buy products from countries that can
produce them better and cheaper, so that we can concentrate our resources on
products that we can produce better and cheaper. - SH2-Increased
Cost in Oil Not a significant increase -According to the Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer of Simmons and Company International, a
specialized energy investment bank, $35 oil in 2003 dollars when adjusted for
inflation would be about $15.25 in 1974 dollars. Yes the price has increased
but prices of almost all products have increased due to inflation. -According to Lovins and Lovins who are
consultants to major oil companies and advisors to the Department of Defense
on Energy Security California does not have a shortage of oil, in fact, only
1% of its electricity comes from oil GG3-Lack
of Jobs in the Data is outdated -According to a -In addition, Labor
Department officials say the rate of 8.7% is normal for GF4-US
Debt -This point is not on
topic and is not directly linked to oil production or lack there of. The fact
that we have a -The -Also according to Clusen of the NRDC, oil and gas product production on
federal lands generates $835 million dollars for the federal treasury, which
is also not significant when considering a 6.4 trillion dollar debt. - GE5-Balance
of Trade How is this
a failure? There has never been a
stated goal of a balanced trade system. -Trade balance is based on
cost benefits analysis. The Structural Inherency- Lack of oil available in the -There is not a lack of
oil in the -The affirmative team
claims that oil drilling in ANWR is necessary to solve their stated problems
with the status quo. We will now offer a minor repair to the status quo that
addresses their problems and provides additional benefits. This minor repair
is to increase energy efficiency. -The NRDC estimates that
increasing vehicle fuel economy standards to 40mpg over the next decade could
save more than 50 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years, which is 10
times more oil than the refuge could yield and could save consumers money. -Increased energy
efficiency no only produces benefits but has been proven to work. -Fuel economy for new
passenger cars nearly doubled in 1975(when standards were 1st
adopted) and their peak in 1988 and Fuel economy for new light trucks
increased by 50%. The rules haven’t changed since 1985; therefore, it is
probable that if they were increased now that they would successfully produce
similar benefits. Workability W1- The
drilling area only addresses “surface acreage covered by production and
support facilities.” It does not cover seismic or other exploration
activities that would have significant biological impacts on the sensitive
artic tundra and wildlife that rely on the security of those areas to
survive. 2nd Negative Solvency Arguments SH1-The
affirmatives figure of 16 billion barrels does not include the cost of
discovery, development, and production. -If you include these
costs and consider economically recoverable oil, According to a 1998 USGS
study, assuming a price of $24 dollars per barrel, there is a 95% chance of
finding 1.9 billion barrels, a 5% chance of finding 9.4 billion barrels, and
a 50% chance of finding 5.3 billion barrels. -So there is a 50% chance
of finding less than a years worth of oil considering the SH2-
Increased oil supply in the -The amount of
economically recoverable oil in the refuge would increase world reserves by
only .3%, which is not enough to cut our oil imports or influence world
prices. -According to the
Congressional Research Service, any global market change that may occur due
to the refuge oil would be either “exceedingly small or uncertain.” GG3- Congressional
Research Service an unbiased source on the subject of oil drilling in October
in 2002 predicted that oil drilling in the refuge would generate 60,000 to
130,000 jobs not the 450,000 to 735,000 jobs that the affirmative team
stated. -Also according to the
NRDC the majority of jobs created by oil drilling would be short-term and
only last for five years. -Since the number of jobs
is not as great as the affirmative team stated and those that would occur
would be temporary- it would not greatly help Alaska’s unemployment rate,
which as stated by my partner is only a season rate which decreases after the
winter months of January and February. GF4- The
increase in federal revenue state to occur by the affirmative team is not
guaranteed to stay within the federal treasury. According to Clusen of the NRDC in his testimony in front of the
Senate Committee on energy and natural resources, the portion of revenue
currently generated from oil and gas production on federal lands is mostly
returned to the states. The federal government has to reimburse the stats for
the cost of managing the oil and gas development. Therefore the increase in
federal treasury would not be as great as stated by the affirmative team. -The affirmative teams’
statement of increased state revenue from an increase in population from oil
workers is completely invalid. As stated previously the increase in jobs will
not be as great as the affirmative team stated and the jobs that do occur
will be temporary, therefore any increase in the states revenue will be
temporary as well. - The fact that the state
revenue utilizing petroleum rose after drilling in GF5- AS
stated earlier, there is a 50% chance of finding less than
a years worth of oil in ANWR, therefore imports would not be decreased
significantly. Disadvantages
D1-As
reported by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the caribou population did
increase after oil field development began in the D2- According to
the NRDC, oil development- no matter how carefully it is done- would harm
large portions of the refuge. The exploration and production would not be
confined to a limited area and would range across as many as 35 separate
fields, which would affect wildlife habitats on hundreds of thousands of
acres inter-spread between sprawling oil fields and pipelines. IN addition
habitats would also be disrupted by industrial activity associated with
airports, permanent production, and gravel roads to connect the facilities.
D3-1/4th
of the permanent jobs in D4- Oil
drilling has cause extensive damage to the ecosystem in the past. |