Oil drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.

 (March 2003)

1st Affirmative

 

  1.  Significant Harm #1 - We're too dependent on Foreign Oil
  1. Significant Harm #2 - We're facing an increased cost of Oil
  2. Greater Good #3.  We lack enough jobs in US
     
  1. Goal Failure #4 - US Deficit is high




    2.  
  2. Goal Failure #5- Our Balance of Trade
    3. is out of line

 

Structural Inherency – There is a lack of oil available in the United States where we are currently drilling and too much oil is being taken from areas around the world that are unstable.    

Plan-

  1. Mandate: Our plan permits oil drilling in the ANWR 1002. The permit for drilling in the Artic will maintain a safe environment for animals and protect from oil spills. 
  2. Mechanism: FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates transmission and sale of natural gas; regulates transmission of oil by pipeline in interstate commerce; oversees environmental matters relates to natural gas, oil , electrical and hydroelectric projects.
  3. Function:
    1. Agency would be in charge of accepting bids, plans, and would make regulations to make sure nature and animals are not harmed.
    2. Agency would be founded from the lease money since it is gov’t land
    3. Agency would make contract that the winning bidder would sign on regulations and clean up.  

 

2nd Affirmative -- Solvency claims

  1. Solv. SH#1  Our plan solves foreign dependency by reducing need for imports
     

  2. Solv. SH#2  Our plan solves rising prices by providing more supply
     

  3. Solv. GG#3  Our plan reduces unemployment

     

  4. Solv. GF #4  Our plan increases federal revenues and solves deficits
     

  5. Solv. GF #5  Our plan reduces imports and solves (im)balance of trade problem

       

                              

Refute what they say……….   

 

1ST negative

 

SH1- Dependency on Foreign Oil

Why is this harmful?

SH2-Increased Cost in Oil

Not a significant increase

GG3-Lack of Jobs in the US

Data is outdated

GF4-US Debt -This point is not on topic and is not directly linked to oil production & dollars that could be “saved” by no longer importing is not significant when considering a 6.4 trillion dollar debt

GF5-How is this a failure? There has never been a stated goal of a balanced trade system.

 

Structural Inherency- There is not a lack of oil in the US where we are currently drilling.  AND a minor repair to increase energy efficiency will solve the problem anyway

 

Workability #1- 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2nd Negative  - Solvency attacks

 

SH1-The affirmatives figure of 16 billion barrels does not include the cost of discovery, development, and production

SH2- Increased oil supply in the US will have no effect on the cost of oil because oil prices are set on a world market

GG3- Congressional Research Service an unbiased source on the subject of oil drilling employment unlike the Affirmative source

GF4- The increase in federal revenue state to occur by the affirmative team is not guaranteed to stay within the federal treasury  (PMA)

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.