OCS Drill

The Drill
There is a 1AC in here that you will be using for this drill. You should get familiar
with the evidence so you will be able to give a 2AC (or 2NC if you happen to be neg).
The 1NC is complete as well so you will need to read through that as well.
Then you will have a mini-debate. These will be 1v1 debates where one person is aff
and will be required to give a 2AC and 1AR if time permits.
The person who is neg will have to cross-x the 2AC and then give a 2NC extending
the case arguments of your choice on each page.
Times for the Debate
2AC 3:00
2AC Cross-x 3:00
2NC 5:00
1AR 2:00
1AC
Contention One: Inherency
Oil search green lit in the Atlantic OCS, but 2017 moratorium prevents any drilling
Michael Wines 2/27/14 U.S. Moves Toward Atlantic Oil Exploration, Stirring Debate Over Sea Life,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/us/us-moves-toward-atlantic-oil-exploration-stirring-debate-over-
sea-life.html?_r=1

The Interior Department opened the door on Thursday to the first searches in decades for oil and gas off the Atlantic
coast, recommending that undersea seismic surveys proceed, though with a host of safeguards to shield marine life from much of their impact.
The recommendation is likely to be adopted after a period of public comment and over objections by environmental activists who
say it will be ruinous for the climate and sea life alike. The American Petroleum Institute called the recommendation a
critical step toward bolstering the nations energy security, predicting that oil and gas production in the region could create
280,000 new jobs and generate $195 billion in private investment. Activists were livid. Allowing exploration could be a death sentence for
many marine mammals, and is needlessly turning the Atlantic Ocean into a blast zone, Jacqueline Savitz, a vice president at the conservation
group Oceana, said in a statement on Thursday. Oceana and other groups have campaigned for months against the Atlantic survey plans, citing
Interior Department calculations that the intense noise of seismic exploration could kill and injure thousands of dolphins and whales. But while
the assessment released on Thursday repeats those estimates, it also largely dismisses them, stating that they employ multiple worst-case
scenarios and ignore measures by humans and the mammals themselves to avoid harm. Many marine scientists say the estimates of death and
injury are at best seriously inflated. Theres no argument that some of these sounds can harm animals, but its blown out of proportion, Arthur
N. Popper, who heads the University of Marylands laboratory of aquatic bioacoustics, said in an interview. Its the Flipper syndrome, or Free
Willy. How the noise affects sea mammals behavior in the long term an issue about which little is known is a much greater concern,
he said. A formal decision to proceed with surveys would reopen a swath off the East Coast stretching from Delaware to Cape Canaveral, Fla.,
that has been closed to petroleum exploration since the early 1980s. Actual drilling of test wells could not begin until a White
House ban on production in the Atlantic expires in 2017, and even then, only after the government agrees
to lease ocean tracts to oil companies, an issue officials have barely begun to study. The petroleum industry has sunk 51 wells off
the East Coast none of them successful enough to begin production in decades past. But the Interior Department said in 2011 that 3.3
billion barrels of recoverable oil and 312 trillion cubic feet of natural gas could lie in the exploration area, and nine companies have already
applied for permits to begin surveys. President Obama committed in 2010 to allowing oil and gas surveys along the
same stretch of the Atlantic, and the government had planned to lease tracts off the Virginia coast for exploration in 2011. But those
plans collapsed after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster in April 2010, and the government later
banned activity in the area until 2017.
U.S. production levels slowing no OCS development
Hillegeist 13President & COO @ Quest Offshore (Paul, The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S.
Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic, December, http://www.noia.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-
Natura....pdf)

Total U.S. oil and natural gas production has increased in recent years . However, this was due mostly to
r ising production f rom shale gas and tight oil formations. The dramatic increase in o nshore unconventional oil and
natural development has been a major contributor in increasing U . S . energy security as well as a significant contributor to the economic
recovery in a number of U.S. states. U.S. offshore oil and natural gas production, predominately from the Gulf of Mexic o, has
recently declined. Currently, there is no oil or natural gas production from the Atlantic OCS . (Figure
6)
Contention Two: Economy
Plan is key to economic growth we will isolate 4 internal links
FIRST unemployment
Despite a small drop in the unemployment level the pace is NOT fast enough to
relieve the jobless backlog
Nelson D. Schwartz April 4 2014 (1995 graduate of the University of Chicago - studied Russian and
American history, covers economy and economics for the The New York Times) Hiring Rises, but
Number of Jobless Stays High, The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/business/economy/jobs-report-for-march.html?_r=0

Employers are hiring at a more aggressive pace again after a winter cold snap, but the pace of job gains is only slowly
making up for years of lost ground in the labor market. Nearly five years after the end of the Great Recession,
the total number of private sector jobs is finally back to where it was as the downturn began in early 2008, the Labor Department reported on
Friday. But that level is still far below what is needed to fully accommodate the millions of people who have
joined the work force since then , or relieve the backlog of jobless workers anytime soon . Still, the
addition of 192,000 jobs last month, all from private employers, represented an uptick from the anemic rate of job creation recorded at the turn of
the year. That encouraged optimists, who foresee a slight strengthening as the wintry weather in many parts of the country in late 2013 and early
2014 yields to a more inviting spring. In addition, while the unemployment rate remained flat at 6.7 percent in March, an increase in the number
of Americans looking for work also offered up some modest hope that better times could lie ahead in 2014. So too did an upward revision in the
number of jobs that government statisticians estimate were added in January and February. Weve gotten back to where we were before the
winter slowdown in terms of job creation as well as where we expect to be going forward, said Dean Maki, chief United States economist at
Barclays. This gets us back on trend. Statistically speaking, the estimated rate of job creation in March was nearly identical to the average
monthly gain of 183,000 jobs recorded over the last 12 months. The latest numbers are likely to be revised significantly as more
information flows into the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even so, they suggest that the economy is not achieving what economists
call escape velocity, something that policy makers have long sought. Neither is it falling into the rut some pessimists feared was developing
early in 2014. Growth-wise, in terms of the economy and the labor market, we think 2014 will look a lot like 2013 and 2012 did, said Guy
Berger, United States economist at RBS Securities. In all likelihood, we will see average monthly job gains of a little north of 200,000 this
year. While that pace of job creation would gradually bring the unemployment rate down, it would take
until nearly the end of the decade before the labor market returned to the level of robustness that prevailed in
the mid-2000s, let alone the 1990s. Experts with the Hamilton Project, a research group that is associated with the Brookings
Institution in Washington, estimate that at the current rate it will take until early 2019 for the economy to
accommodate new entrants into the work force and get back to where it was before the recession. While the Labor
Department data showed that private payrolls in March stood at 116.09 million compared with 115.98 million as the recession began in
January 2008 the size of the American work force has jumped by more than two million over the same period. Moreover, even as
people joined the work force, millions of other Americans dropped out of it entirely in the last five years, having
given up the search for work, and the question of just how many of them will ever return to full- or even part-time jobs is now being
hotly debated in economic circles. The participation rate did edge up in March as more workers returned to the labor market amid increased
openings, a central reason the unemployment rate remained flat even as a survey of households suggested that nearly half a million people found
new jobs last month. The return of Americans to the job hunt not only underscores just how much slack remains in the
economy but also means that the unemployment rate is unlikely to keep falling as sharply as it has in the last two years.
Thats because people who are again looking for work are counted as unemployed, while those who have given up and dropped out of the labor
force are not.
Slow employment rates makes the US economy vulnerable to outside shocks
domestic oil production ONLY way to provide enough jobs at a fast pace
Morici 12 (Peter, economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland,
8/3/12, Unemployment Rises, Hundreds of Thousands Quit Looking Fox)
http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/08/03/unemployment-rises-hundreds-thousands-quit-
looking/

The financial crisis in Europe and mounting problems in Chinas economy worry U.S. businesses about a second major recession and discourage
new hiring. The U.S. economy continues to expand at a torturously slow pace , and is quite vulnerable to
shock waves from crises in Europe and Asia. Factoring in those discouraged adults and others working
part time for lack of full time opportunities, the unemployment rate is 15%. Prospects for substantially lowering the
headline unemployment rate are slim, because so many folks who left the labor force would likely return if economic conditions improved. The
economy would have to add about 13.3 million jobs over the next three years about 370,000 each month to bring unemployment down to
6%. Growth in the range of 4-5% is necessary to accomplish that. Growth is weak and jobs are in jeopardy, because temporary tax cuts, stimulus
spending, large federal deficits, expensive but ineffective business regulations, and costly health care mandates do not address structural problems
holding back dynamic growth and jobs creation the huge trade deficit and dysfunctional energy policies. Oil and trade with China account for
nearly the entire $600 billion trade deficit. Dollars sent abroad that do not return to purchase U.S. exports, are lost purchasing power.
Consequently, the U.S. economy is expanding at 2% a year instead of the 5% pace that is possible after
emerging from a deep recession and with such high unemployment. Without prompt efforts to
produce more domestic oil , redress the trade imbalance with China, relax burdensome business regulations, and curb health care
mandates and costs, the U.S. economy cannot grow and create enough jobs .
OCS drilling would create millions of new jobs
Mason 09 (Joseph, Ph.D. in Finance, University of Illinois, February 2011, The Economic
Contribution of Increased Offshore Oil Exploration and Production to Regional and National Economies
American Energy Alliance)
http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/images/aea_offshore_updated_final.pdf

An economic expansion tied to increased OCS resource production would also create millions of new jobs
both in the extraction industry and in other sectors that serve as suppliers or their employees. The analysis
below estimates employment increases that can be expected from opening up previously unavailable OCS Planning Areas. As before, effects are
estimated for coastal states and the nation using the applicable BEA multipliers. Following that analysis, the paper compares the types of jobs that
will be created in terms of the wage structure and seasonality relative to other existing jobs in coastal states. 1. BEA Multiplier Analysis As
above, the analysis estimates both the immediate and the total economic effects associated with increased OCS oil and gas production. Using
the investment multipliers (denominated in job-years per $1 million change in final demand) in Table A3 and total investment costs in
Table 3, the expected coastal state changes in employment are represented in Table 9. 51 The annual increase in coastal state
employment from initial investments in previously unavailable OCS planning areas and additional
refining capacity is estimated to be 185,320 fulltime jobs per year. Again, this number does not consider the secondary
effects of investment in productive capacity and refining to other U.S. states. To estimate the total increase in employment tied to production in
previously unavailable OCS Planning Areas, the BEAs final-demand employment multiplier is applied to the estimated total resource value
estimates in Table 4. The total increase in U.S. employment from the investment phase is approximately
271,570 full-time jobs per year. Applying the BEA multipliers to the estimated production value results in the employment estimates
in Table 10. 52 According to Table 10, approximately 870,000 coastal state jobs would be created in addition to the jobs created during the initial
investment phase. Again, the state BEA multipliers do not account for increases in employment outside of the target state. As a result,
secondary jobs created in one state based on OCS production in another state are omitted from the totals
in Table 10. The total increase in U.S. employment in all states that results from increased OCS
production is estimated by applying the overall U.S. employment multiplier (10.4152 job-years per $1 million) to
the total value of the additional OCS resources ($3,427,667,487,135), suggesting that approximately 35,700,000
total job-years would be created over the course of production in newly opened OCS Planning Areas. If
we again assume a 30 year production horizon, approximately 1,190,000 jobs would be sustained for the
entire production period, approximately 340,000 of which are secondary jobs outside the coastal regions.
And, drilling has a multiplier effect that will boost our economy significantly
Mason 09 (Joseph, Ph.D. in Finance, University of Illinois, February 2011, The Economic
Contribution of Increased Offshore Oil Exploration and Production to Regional and National Economies
American Energy Alliance)
http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/images/aea_offshore_updated_final.pdf

The broadest measure of the incremental effect of increased OCS oil and natural gas extraction is the effect on
total economic output. Output is generally expressed as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which measures the total production
of goods and services in a given country. The corollary at the state level is known as Gross State Product (GSP). BEAs final demand output
multipliers can be used to perform two analyses. First, the multipliers are applied to initial investment costs in Table 3 to
determine the likely annual benefits that would accrue in the first years the OCS is open to development. Then, the multipliers are
applied to the resource value estimates in Table 4 to measure the expected total increase in output over the lifetime of the projects.
Estimates are provided for both coastal states and the U.S., as a whole. In total, the investment and production phases
together can be expected to contribute over $11 trillion in GDP over the project lifespan. Until OCS
production begins, onshore communities will realize only the benefits associated with offshore
investment. These benefits take two forms: (1) the development of the offshore facilities themselves and
(2) the expansion of onshore refining capacity. These two effects, taken together, provide a rough
approximation of the additional output that would be created by allowing greater access to offshore
resources. Using the investment estimates from Table 3 and Table 6 and BEA multipliers in Table A3 above, the estimated increase in coastal
state economic output is presented in Table 7. The figures in Table 7 only provide the increase in output that is generated in the same state as the
increase in production. As an integrated economy, however, output in one state is tied to output in other states .
For example, Alabama workers building a facility off the Alabama shore might use steel produced in Illinois
and fabricated into pipes in Missouri. These effects may be considered secondary effects because they
spread from one state to other states. Using the individual multiplier for Alabama would thus under-report the total effect associated
with production off the coast of Alabama. Using the total U.S. multipliers (2.2860 for refining and 2.3938 for extraction), the total
increase in U.S. output is estimated to be about $0.5 trillion, or approximately $73 billion per year for the
first seven years the OCS is open. For comparative purposes, a $73 billion stimulus amounts to
approximately 0.5 percent of total U.S. output (GDP) per year. 49 Of course, the investment expenditures and resulting output
estimated above is only made to facilitate oil and gas extraction. Once extraction begins, additional economic activity
continues for the lifetime of the oil and natural gas resources. Applying the BEA multipliers for Oil and Gas Extraction
in Table A3 to the estimates of the total value of the oil and gas resources in Table 4 yields the total increases to coastal state output from oil and
gas extraction in Table 8. Table 8 indicates that increased OCS oil and gas extraction would yield approximately $192
billion per year in new coastal state output, or $5.75 trillion over the lifetime of the fields. Because the OCS
areas are currently unavailable, the entire amount $5.75 trillion is additional output created by a change in policy allowing resource
extraction in additional OCS Planning Areas. To approximate the total increase in output associated with increasing offshore resource production,
including the associated secondary effects, the overall United States output multiplier is applied (2.3938) to the total value of the applicable OCS
resources ($3,427,667,487,135). Note that the multiplier for the United States captures sec ondary effects, being greater than any of the individual
state multipliers. 50 As a result, the state-by-state analysis in Table 8 misses approximately $2.45 trillion in secondary output. The total
increase in output in the United States is estimated to total approximately $8.2 trillion or about $273
billion per year, which amounts to just over two percent of GDP.
SECOND price volatility
Increasing domestic oil production mitigates the impact of price volatility
Weidenmier 10 (Mark, adjunct scholar at AEI, 4/1/10, Drill, Baby, Drill American Enterprise
Institute) http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/conventional-energy/drill-baby-drill/

Increasing U.S. domestic petroleum will not likely lower world oil prices--most experts believe that U.S. oil reserves are
small in relation to the rest of the world. But it will help the U.S. offset the negative economic impact of a large
increase in oil prices. For example, the economies of Alaska and Texas fare much better than non-energy
producing states when oil prices rise by 50% or 100%. Oil- and natural-gas-producing states experience
smaller increases in unemployment and a smaller decline in non-farm employment during a peak oil
shock. The reason for this is simple; the size of the energy sector expands during a period when oil prices
rise while the rest of the economy shrinks. The growing energy sector helps prop up other areas in the
economy by increasing the demand for goods and services in non-oil industries.
Price volatility can collapse the U.S. economy biggest internal link
Conway 13--former commandant of the United States Marine Corps and president of the Marine Corps
University (General James, As the senior operations officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was the
principle advisor on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to the president of the United States, the National
Security Council and the secretary of defense, GEN. JAMES CONWAY: Oil dependence limits U.S.
military options,, July 29, http://rare.us/story/gen-james-conway-oil-dependence-limits-u-s-military-
options/)

Oil markets are also highly volatile because there is very little flexibility at any point in time. In a very real sense,
oil dependence tethers the fate of our economy to the vacillations of the global oil market. Political
instability, terrorism, war even weather events in a far-flung corner of the globe can send
shockwaves that affect Americans at home. Because we lack substitutes to oil (particularly in the transportation sector,
which relies on oil for 93 percent of its fuel), U.S. consumers and businesses have no choice but to pay higher energy prices when the volatile
price of oil moves higher. Needless to say, being forced to pay higher energy costs is extremely damaging to our
economy. It breaks budgets, costs jobs and even worsens our fiscal nightmare because it dampens
overall economic growth. It is no coincidence that every U.S. recession for the past 40 years has coincided
with a spike in oil prices . This economic vulnerability directly weakens national security. Because of
Americas dependence on oil, the U.S. military is forced to shoulder the tremendous burden both
in dollars and military resources of guarding against oil supply disruptions across the globe.
US growth is key to global economic recovery
Caploe 09 (David, PhD in International political economy from Princeton, Focus still on America to
lead global recovery, The Straits Times, 8/2/12)

IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made by
United States President Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: 'The world has become
accustomed to the US being a voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a lot of economic
growth worldwide,' he said. 'If there is going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as the engine.'
While superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the global economy has
in fact been 'America-centred' for more than 60 years. Countries - China, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Korea,
Mexico and so on - either sell to the US or they sell to countries that sell to the US. This system has generally been
advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically unprecedented benefits, but the system also
enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and later, many in the Third World -
to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At the same time, this deep inter-connection between the US and the
rest of the world also explains how the collapse of a relatively small sector of the US economy - 'sub-
prime' housing, logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's ingenious chicanery - has cascaded into
the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that
there is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six decades. If the US does not drive global economic growth, growth
is not going to happen. Thus, US policies to deal with the current crisis are critical not just domestically, but also to the entire world.
Consequently, it is a matter of global concern that the Obama administration seems to be following Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowing
major banks to avoid declaring massive losses openly and transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in reality dead.
As analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US banks is
the main reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable credit freeze, thus ravaging the American and global economies. Team
Obama seems reluctant to acknowledge the extent to which its policies at home are failing not just there but around the world as well. Which
raises the question: If the US can't or won't or doesn't want to be the global economic engine, which country
will? The obvious answer is China. But that is unrealistic for three reasons. First, China's economic health
is more tied to America's than practically any other country in the world. Indeed, the reason China has so
many dollars to invest everywhere - whether in US Treasury bonds or in Africa - is precisely that it has
structured its own economy to complement America's. The only way China can serve as the engine of the global economy is
if the US starts pulling it first. Second, the US-centred system began at a time when its domestic demand far outstripped that of the rest of the
world. The fundamental source of its economic power is its ability to act as the global consumer of last resort. China, however, is a poor
country, with low per capita income, even though it will soon pass Japan as the world's second largest
economy. There are real possibilities for growth in China's domestic demand. But given its structure as an export-oriented economy, it is
doubtful if even a successful Chinese stimulus plan can pull the rest of the world along unless and until China can start selling again to the US on
a massive scale. Finally, the key 'system' issue for China - or for the European Union - in thinking about
becoming the engine of the world economy - is monetary: What are the implications of having your domestic currency
become the global reserve currency? This is an extremely complex issue that the US has struggled with, not always successfully, from 1959 to the
present. Without going into detail, it can safely be said that though having the US dollar as the world's
medium of exchange has given the US some tremendous advantages, it has also created huge problems,
both for America and the global economic system. The Chinese leadership is certainly familiar with this history. It will try to
avoid the yuan becoming an international medium of exchange until it feels much more confident in its ability to handle the manifold currency
problems that the US has grappled with for decades. Given all this, the US will remain the engine of global economic
recovery for the foreseeable future, even though other countries must certainly help. This crisis began
Global economic decline causes nuclear war
Ockham Research 08 (Ockham Research, Economic Distress and Geopolitical Risks by: Ockham
Research, Ockham Research Staff November 18, 2008????Ockham Research Ockham Research is an
independent research provider based in Atlanta, Georgia providing security analysis)

The hardship and turmoil which impacted the world during the Great Depression provided fertile ground for the rise of fascist, expansionist
regimes in Germany, Italy and Japan.?Hard times also precluded the Western democracies from a more muscular response in the face of growing
belligerence from these countries.?The United States largely turned inward during the difficult years of the 1930s.?The end result was a
global war of a size and scale never seen by man (SIC) either before or since.?Economic hardship is distracting. It can cause
nations to turn their focus inward with little or no regard for rising global threats that inevitably build in tumultuous
times.?Authoritarian regimes invariably look for scapegoats to blame for the hardship affecting their populace.?This enables them to project the
anger of their citizenry away from the regime itself and onto another race, country, ideology, etc.??Looking at the world today, one can
certainly envision numerous potential flashpoints that could become problematic in a protracted economic
downturn.?Pakistan, already a hotbed of Islamic extremism and armed with atomic weapons, has been
particularly hard hit by the global economic crisis.?An increasingly impoverished Pakistan will be harder and harder for its new and shaky
democratically-elected government to control.?Should Pakistans economic troubles cause its political situation, always chaotic, to
spin out of control, this would be a major setback, in the global war on terror.??Russia, whose economy, stock
markets and financial system have literally imploded over the past few months, could become increasingly problematic if faced
with a protracted economic downturn.?The increasingly authoritarian and aggressive Russian regime is already showing signs of anger
projection. Its invasion of Georgia this summer and increasing willingness to confront the West reflect a desire to stoke the pride and anger of its
people against foreign powers?particularly the United States. It is no accident that the, Russians, announced a willingness to
deploy tactical missile systems?to Kaliningrad the day after Barack Obama?s election in the U.S.?This was a clear ?shot across the
bow? of the new administration and demonstrates Russian willingness to pursue a much more confrontational foreign policy going forward.
Furthermore, the collapse in the price of oil augers poorly for Russia?s economy. The Russian budget reputedly needs oil at $70 per barrel or
higher in order to be in balance. Russian foreign currency reserves, once huge, have been depleted massively over the past few months by ham-
fisted attempts to arrest the slide in both markets and the financial system.Bristling with nuclear weapons and nursing an ego still badly bruised
by the collapse of the Soviet Union and loss of superpower status, an impoverished and unstable Russia would be a dangerous thing to
behold.??China too is threatened by the global economic downturn.?There is no doubt that China has emerged during the
past decade as a major economic power. Parts of the country have been transformed by its meteoric growth. However, in truth, only about a
quarter of the nations billion plus inhabitants?those living in the thriving cities on the coast and in Beijing, have truly felt the impact of the
economic boom. Many of these people have now seen a brutal bear market and are adjusting to economic loss and diminished future
prospects.?However, the vast majority of China?s population did not benefit from the economic boom and could become increasingly restive in
an economic slowdown.?Enough economic hardship could conceivably threaten the stability of the regime and
would more than likely make China more bellicose and unpredictable in its behavior, with dangerous
consequences for the U.S. and the world.
Contention Three: Geopolitics
Oil dependence constrains the US military credibility, it locks in intervention and
constrains options Alleviating oil dependence key to U.S. credibility
Blair 14 (Admiral Dennis C. Blair, U.S. Navy (Ret.) Former Director of National Intelligence and
Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Command, Oil Security 2025 U.S. National Security Policy
in an Era of Domestic Oil Abundance, Jan 22, http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-01-22/oil-security-
2025-report-us-remains-vulnerable

The national security, foreign policy, and geopolitical impacts of U.S. oil abundance are more nuanced and
less understood. A wide range of market observers, policymakers, and other stakeholders have suggested that todays
shifts in energy market dynamics, extrapolated to the future, will result in major changes in global economics and
regional security dynamicsparticularly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)with attendant benefi ts for the United States.
For example, as reliance on foreign oil supplies decreases, it is often suggested that the United States could
disengage militarily from volatile oil-producing regions, clearing the way for a larger security role
and increased burden-sharing by energy-hungry emerging economies, especially China and India. Although there
may one day be some truth to such assertions, very little of this analysis is based on a rigorous framework for understanding energy market
dynamics, and much of it ignores the potential for wide ranging uncertainty in current forecasts. Nonetheless, shifts in U.S. energy supply are
likely to have unexpected consequences for global energy suppliers, consumers, and even prices. For example, many long-time U.S. oil suppliers
(such as Algeria, Angola, and Nigeria) have already begun to turn to new markets as U.S. demand for their oil declines, incurring substantial
transaction costs and losing revenue in the process. Such changes could, in turn, have important social, political, and economic impacts in these
and other countries. While navigating such changes, the United States will need to balance a combination of sometimes
competing interestsdiplomatic, military, and economic. To best serve the national interest, it will be critical for
U.S. policymakers to consider the potential of the various impacts and implications of U.S. oil abundance
to initiate major changes in the global political and security environment. The lack of a robust framework for
examining these impacts stands out as a major gap in long-term policy planning. This report presents a scenario-based analysis through 2025 to
help explore the likely impacts of rising U.S. oil production on a host of countries and regions across the globespecifi cally, the Middle East
and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Russia, and China. The scenarios comprise a combination of low and high cases for global oil demand and
global oil supply, allowing rising U.S. oil production to be analyzed within the appropriate context of a global oil market. A group of
wildcards difficult-to-predict developments that could have a significant impact on either global oil
supply or demandare presented alongside the scenarios. The results of this scenario analysis show that the global impacts of rising
U.S. oil production depend greatly upon the assumptions made regarding the global oil demand and supply outlook. The most important potential
implications for U.S. policymakers are highlighted in detail, and a suite of policy recommendations are outlined. Regardless of the direction the
global oil market ultimately takes, the importance of oil to the U.S. economy and the global economy will
remain beyond dispute . The Commissions recommendations aim to better position the United States in the future by focusing on
policy changes in the national security, diplomacy, and energy spheres that will strengthen the countrys capability
to minimize global oil supply disruptions, enhance its resiliency in the face of any such disruption, and
bolster its response capabilities.
The plan sends a signal of strength which is key to credibility
Manjarres 09 (Javier, political writer, 9/22/9, Offshore Drilling is an Essential Step Towards Energy
Independence Red County) http://www.redcounty.com/node/32160

Modern oil extraction technology is safe and efficient, with enormous advances having been made over
the last 30 years. Combined with more effective modern response techniques for oil spills, the opposition to offshore oil drilling is quick to
resort to the same old alarmist rhetoric that is intended to spread fear rather than educate the public. We can immediately begin decreasing our
dependency off foreign oil and provide Florida with an enormous economic boost if we were to open the coast of Florida to drilling immediately.
Aside from the tangible beneficial effects that offshore drilling would bring to our economy, we must also
consider the symbolic message that it would send to the rest of the world. If we are being perceived by
other developing nations as indecisive and weak unable to marshal energy resources right off our
own shores are we going to continue to pretend that other nations will not attempt to extract those same
energy resources from right under our noses? Will opponents of offshore drilling continue to exude a false
sense of moral superiority to the global community simply because we refuse to open our own coastlines
to drilling even as other nations begin to drill within 50 miles of our own shores? The answer is
simplewe need to send a clear signal to the world that we can and will responsibly explore and
manage the energy resources both within our borders and along our shorelines, thereby encouraging our
global competitors to take their energy exploration efforts elsewhere. There are always critical junctures
in a nations history when a people need to move past dialogue for its own sake and into meaningful action, and we are at that
juncture now, especially in the security-conscious post 9/11 era. Clear majorities of people believe that the merits of
offshore drilling are essential to our nations progress and security. For those who claim that the proponents of offshore
drilling are rushing into the endeavor, they should be reminded that our nation has been effectively dealing with offshore drilling bans
emanating from different levels of government for over 30 years it is only recently that majorities of people understand the full ramifications of
continuing on with a self-defeating national energy policy. We encourage the requisite players in the oil industry to be as transparent and
forthcoming with the American people as possible as we begin to throw the chains off our national energy policy. Just as fear and ignorance in
the 70s and 80s stalled the development of nuclear power in this country, similar public relations challenges confront the oil and gas industry.
Informing and instructing the public about the necessity of oil exploration and drilling is an ongoing
process that needs to continue until it achieves a consensus so broad that it will force our legislators to
abandon their inaction and obstruction on a matter of critical importance to our nations future.
Failed leadership causes extinctionno alternative to hegemony
Brzezinski 12 Zbigniew K. Brzezinski (CSIS counselor and trustee and cochairs the CSIS Advisory
Board, holds honorary degrees from Georgetown University, Williams College, Fordham University,
College of the Holy Cross, Alliance College, the Catholic University of Lublin, Warsaw University, and
Vilnius University. He is the recipient of numerous honors and awards) February 2012 After America
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/after_america?page=0,0

For if America falters, the world is unlikely to be dominated by a single preeminent successor -- not even China. International uncertainty,
increased tension among global competitors, and even outright chaos would be far more likely outcomes. While a sudden,
massive crisis of the American system -- for instance, another financial crisis -- would produce a fast-moving chain reaction leading to global
political and economic disorder, a steady drift by America into increasingly pervasive decay or endlessly widening warfare with
Islam would be unlikely to produce, even by 2025, an effective global successor. No single power will be ready by then to
exercise the role that the world, upon the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, expected the United States to play: the leader of a new, globally
cooperative world order. More probable would be a protracted phase of rather inconclusive realignments of both
global and regional power, with no grand winners and many more losers, in a setting of international
uncertainty and even of potentially fatal risks to global well-being . Rather than a world where dreams of democracy
flourish, a Hobbesian world of enhanced national security based on varying fusions of authoritarianism, nationalism, and religion could ensue.
RELATED 8 Geopolitically Endangered Species The leaders of the world's second-rank powers, among them India, Japan, Russia, and
some European countries, are already assessing the potential impact of U.S. decline on their respective national
interests. The Japanese, fearful of an assertive China dominating the Asian mainland, may be thinking of closer links with Europe. Leaders in
India and Japan may be considering closer political and even military cooperation in case America falters and China rises. Russia, while
perhaps engaging in wishful thinking (even schadenfreude) about America's uncertain prospects, will almost certainly have its eye
on the independent states of the former Soviet Union. Europe, not yet cohesive, would likely be pulled in
several directions: Germany and Italy toward Russia because of commercial interests, France and insecure Central Europe in favor of a
politically tighter European Union, and Britain toward manipulating a balance within the EU while preserving its special relationship with a
declining United States. Others may move more rapidly to carve out their own regional spheres: Turkey in the area of
the old Ottoman Empire, Brazil in the Southern Hemisphere, and so forth. None of these countries, however, will have the
requisite combination of economic, financial, technological, and military power even to consider
inheriting America's leading role. China, invariably mentioned as America's prospective successor, has an impressive imperial
lineage and a strategic tradition of carefully calibrated patience, both of which have been critical to its overwhelmingly successful, several-
thousand-year-long history. China thus prudently accepts the existing international system, even if it does not view the prevailing hierarchy as
permanent. It recognizes that success depends not on the system's dramatic collapse but on its evolution toward a gradual redistribution of power.
Moreover, the basic reality is that China is not yet ready to assume in full America's role in the world. Beijing's leaders
themselves have repeatedly emphasized that on every important measure of development, wealth, and power, China will still be a
modernizing and developing state several decades from now, significantly behind not only the United
States but also Europe and Japan in the major per capita indices of modernity and national power.
Accordingly, Chinese leaders have been restrained in laying any overt claims to global leadership. At some stage,
however, a more assertive Chinese nationalism could arise and damage China's international interests. A swaggering,
nationalistic Beijing would unintentionally mobilize a powerful regional coalition against itself. None of
China's key neighbors -- India, Japan, and Russia -- is ready to acknowledge China's entitlement to America's place on the global totem pole.
They might even seek support from a waning America to offset an overly assertive China. The resulting
regional scramble could become intense, especially given the similar nationalistic tendencies among
China's neighbors. A phase of acute international tension in Asia could ensue. Asia of the 21st century could
then begin to resemble Europe of the 20th century -- violent and bloodthirsty . At the same time, the
security of a number of weaker states located geographically next to major regional powers also depends on the
international status quo reinforced by America's global preeminence -- and would be made significantly more
vulnerable in proportion to America's decline. The states in that exposed position -- including Georgia, Taiwan, South Korea,
Belarus, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, and the greater Middle East -- are today's geopolitical equivalents of
nature's most endangered species. Their fates are closely tied to the nature of the international environment left
behind by a waning America, be it ordered and restrained or, much more likely, self-serving and
expansionist. A faltering United States could also find its strategic partnership with Mexico in jeopardy.
America's economic resilience and political stability have so far mitigated many of the challenges posed by such sensitive neighborhood issues as
economic dependence, immigration, and the narcotics trade. A decline in American power, however, would likely
undermine the health and good judgment of the U.S. economic and political systems. A waning United
States would likely be more nationalistic, more defensive about its national identity, more paranoid about
its homeland security, and less willing to sacrifice resources for the sake of others' development. The
worsening of relations between a declining America and an internally troubled Mexico could even give rise to a particularly ominous
phenomenon: the emergence, as a major issue in nationalistically aroused Mexican politics, of territorial claims justified by history and ignited by
cross-border incidents. Another consequence of American decline could be a corrosion of the generally
cooperative management of the global commons -- shared interests such as sea lanes, space, cyberspace,
and the environment, whose protection is imperative to the long-term growth of the global economy and
the continuation of basic geopolitical stability. In almost every case, the potential absence of a constructive
and influential U.S. role would fatally undermine the essential communality of the global commons
because the superiority and ubiquity of American power creates order where there would normally be
conflict. None of this will necessarily come to pass. Nor is the concern that America's decline would generate global insecurity, endanger some
vulnerable states, and produce a more troubled North American neighborhood an argument for U.S. global supremacy. In fact, the strategic
complexities of the world in the 21st century make such supremacy unattainable. But those dreaming today of America's collapse would probably
come to regret it. And as the world after America would be increasingly complicated and chaotic, it is imperative that
the United States pursue a new, timely strategic vision for its foreign policy -- or start bracing itself for a dangerous slide into global turmoil.
Effective OCS drilling critical to energy access
Mills 12 (Mark, physicist, is an adjunct fellow with the Manhattan Institute and Forbes Energy
Intelligence columnist, served in President Ronald Reagans White House Science Office, 7/25/12, U.S.
can become an energy export nation Politico)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78978_Page2.html

A number of recent detailed forecasts predict that the U.S. could close in on zero imports if current trends
continue. We could finally realize that elusive goal of energy independence. In the process, we could add nearly
$1 trillion in cumulative federal, state and local government tax revenues and generate 2 to 4 million new jobs. But independence misses
the point in a world craving fuel. We need to become an exporter . The U.S. could, in collaboration with Canada and
Mexicosimilar to the North American Free Trade Agreement, forge policies to encourage hydrocarbon production and export. That would
reset geopolitics. And just starting down that path would really light a fire under job and economic
growth. We know sufficient geophysical resources exist to support an export-nation policy. U.S. Geological
Survey data reveal that this continent has more than 10,000 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in natural gas,
oil and coal. Thats more than four times the resources of the Middle East. We consume only 20 billion of
that a year. If we maximized North American hydrocarbon potential, our energy exports to the world
could exceed those from the Middle East by 2030. This would add something like $7 trillion to our
economies, spur manufacturing as well as research and development investment from the largesse and
stimulate millions more high-paying jobs. And it would send tremors through the fields of the Middle East and Russia.The key to
converting resources to producible reserves for export lies in advancing technology. We might even embrace the shocking idea of subsidizing
this. But we cannot be an export nation without moving beyond a ball-and-chain regulatory system
including access to the vast swaths of resources under off-limits federal lands. There is no doubt the world
will use vastly more hydrocarbons in the future. The only real variables are who will supply all that fuel
and thus who will enjoy the economic and geopolitical benefits. We have the potential to be that leader.
If we dont grab that chance, others will. Expanding North American hydrocarbon production for export
may be our most important opportunity for growth as well as for long-term peace.
Contention Four: Solvency
Development of OCS oil jump-starts economic growth and domestic energy
production
Hillegeist 13President & COO @ Quest Offshore (Paul, The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S.
Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic, December, http://www.noia.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-and-
Natura....pdf)

5. 1 Conclusions The offshore U.S. oil and natural gas industry is a vital component to the nations energy supply, as
well a significant source of employment, economic activity, and government revenue throughout the
nation . However, large portions of the nations federal waters are currently inaccessible to oil and gas
operators, including the Atlantic OCS area which shows strong potential for offshore oil and natural gas
activity. Allowing oil and gas operators access to Atlantic OCS offshore reserves is expected to benefit oil
and natural gas production, employment, the national economy, and government revenue. If leasing in the Atlantic
OCS began in 2018 and seismic in 2017, annual capital investment and other spending due to offshore oil and natural gas
development would be projected to grow from nearly $7 billion per year in 2025 to nearly $20 billion per year
in 2035. Cumulative capital investments and other spending from 2017 to 2035 are projected at about $195 billio n. Atlantic coast
OCS oil and gas activities could create nearly 80 thousand jobs by 2025, of which nearly 40 thousand would be in the
Atlantic coast s tates. By 2035, total national employment due to Atlantic OCS oil and gas exploration and
production would reach nearly 280 thousand jobs, with 215 thousand of these jobs in Atlantic coast states. Development
of the Atlantic coasts offshore oil and natural g as reserves would lead to production of over 1.34 million
barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2035. Atlantic OCS offshore activity would contribute nearly $6.5 billion
per year to the national economy in 2025, with Atlantic coast states receiving contrib utions of over $3 billion per year . In 2035
total national contributions to the economy could reach $23.5 billion per year , with Atlantic coast states receiving combined contributions of $18
billion per year . Combined state and federal revenues from bonuses, rents and royalties are projected to
reach about $645 million per year in 2025, with these revenues projected to grow to nearly $ 12.2 billion per
year in 2035. If a legislated state / f ederal revenue sharing agreement is enacted, t he Atlantic coast states could see significant gains to
their s tate budgets. With a 37.5 percent sharing agreement, s tate revenues are projected to be around $250 million per year by 2025, with these
revenues expected to grow to over $4.5 billion per year by 2035, leading to further increases in economic activity and employment. 19 If a
different revenue perc entage were enacted, projected s tate revenues should be adjusted proportionally. Under the development scenario put forth
by Quest Offshore Resources, it is clear that the Atlantic OCS displays significant potential to grow the American
economy within a multitude of industries and locations. Allowing access to the Atlantic OCS for oil and gas
exploration and production activities is likely to lead to large capital investments and operational
spending by oil and gas operators to develop the ar eas reserves. This spending would likely lead to large
increases in employment and economic activity both in the directly affected states and nationally.
Additionally, this activity is projected to lead to a large increase in domestic energy production and the
royalties plus other revenues received are expected to lead to healthy increases in revenues to state and
federal governments.
Significant oil production would come online quickly
IER 09 (2/11/09, Offshore Energy Exploration: Myth vs. Fact Institute for Energy Research)
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/02/11/offshore-energy-exploration-myth-vs-fact-2/

Further, while there may be areas along the Atlantic coast without the significant build-out of infrastructure
needed to facilitate quick energy production, other currently unexplored areas do have that infrastructure
in place, such as the eastern Gulf of Mexico. No serious observer has ever suggested that it would take
anywhere close to ten years to access those energy resources and deliver them to American consumers. Furthermore, in
places like California, where an infrastructure is already in place and the local community supports
offshore exploration, those resources could be available in a significantly shorter period of time.
1NC
Economy
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 report released on Thursday will likely calm fears
about the strength of the economic recovery and 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 following the failure of Lehman Brothers.
No effect on jobs or oil prices recent production trends prove
Krugman 12 Nobel 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)

The irony here is that these claims come just as events are confirming what everyone who did the math already knew, namely, that U.S.
energy policy has very little effect either on oil prices or on overall U.S. employment. For the truth is that 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 past
three 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 it clear
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.
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
Congressional Budget Office found the potential revenue from expanded offshore 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 yield about $7 billion in additional receipts over the next 10 years,
according to CBO. Much of that money would flow not to the U.S. Treasury but to the state of Alaska. Oil and gas 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.
Plan causes oil spills kills 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 the Outer 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
has renewed 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 the
current Bush administration and its allies in Congress. Drilling off our coasts is not the way to achieve energy independence or bring down gas-
pump and home heating prices, says Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope. We dont need to sacrifice our beaches and 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 of Interiors 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 and
Environmental 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
extraction in particular, hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" have made gas cheap and abundant. Gas inventories are piling
up, 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 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 assume for the sake of argument that a big burst of investment public, private or both in fossil fuel
production really shifts our economy into high gear in 2012. Can't complain, right? Wrong, once the long-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 by fracking, 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 insignificant 3 reasons
Elmendorf 11 (Douglas, Director of CBO, Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and
Employment in 2012 and 2013 before the Committee on the Budget United States Senate, Nov 15,
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/11-15-Outlook_Stimulus_Testimony.pdf,
CMR)

Energy and the Environment. Projects to increase the production of energy are typically subject to review by multiple levels of government.
Federal agencies generally focus on compliance with national performance standards and on infrastructure that crosses state boundaries, such as
pipelines and electric power transmission lines. Federal agencies also determine the conditions under which the private
sector can develop resources on public lands, such as the Outer Continental S helf and national forests. Those review processes
generally aim to limit damage to health and the environment from economic activity, but they also affect the amount and pace of investments in
the energy sector. For example, the federal approval process may delay or prevent the launching of projects that, if ultimately approved and
undertaken, would result in significant investment and production. In addition, the prospect of such delays and the risk of projects being
blocked deter some projects from being proposed at all. The federal government could increase employment and output during the next few
years by hastening or relaxing the approval process for energy projects or by expanding opportunities to develop resources on public lands.
However, the short-term effects of such changes would probably be small relative to the size of the
overall economy for several reasons. First, state and local governments strongly influence the siting of energy
facilities within their boundaries, and the federal government does not control the actions of those
governments. Second, even if additional projects were approved in the next few years, many of them would not
commence in earnest for several years. Finally, energy production accounts for only a small percentage of
overall output, so incremental gains in that sector would have only a modest effect on the economy as a
whole.
No global economic collapse and it wouldnt cause conflict
Drezner 11 (Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts University, 8-12-2011, Please come down off the ledge, dear readers, Foreign
polivy, http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/, CMR)

So, when we last left off this debate, things were looking grim. My concern in the last post was that the persistence of hard
times would cause governments to take actions that would lead to a collapse of the open global economy, a spike in general riots and
disturbances, and eerie echoes of the Great Depression. Let's assume that the global economy persists in sputtering for
a while, because that's what happens after major financial shocks. Why won't these 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'm
gonna 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's corpus of trade-liberalizing measures
are still working 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 Banking Supervision has already promulgated a plan to strengthen capital requirements for banks. True, it's a slow, weak-assed
plan, but it would be an improvement over the status quo. As for the G-20, I've been pretty skeptical about that group's abilities to 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 reassurance. Even if there are disagreements, communication can prevent them from growing into
anything worse. Finally, a note about the possibility of riots and other general social unrest. The
working paper cited 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.
Geopolitics
No dependency
Existing production is sufficientalso solves economy
Davidson 14 (Paul, U.S. may be inching toward oil independence, Feb 9,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/07/falling-oil-imports/5268819/)

U.S. oil imports fell sharply again in 2013 while petroleum exports rose, leading some analysts to proclaim that a
new era of energy independence is just a few years away. Experts largely credit new drilling techniques
that have unearthed vast troves of previously inaccessible oil embedded in shale deposits in states such as
North Dakota and Texas. "We're at the beginning of a long upswing," says Citigroup analyst Eric Lee. Crude oil
imports declined 9% last year to 2.8 billion barrels, lowest since 1995, and are down 17% since 2010,
according to the Census Bureau. Meanwhile, exports, mostly of refined gasoline and diesel, rose about 11%, narrowing the
country's petroleum deficit by about $59 billion, or 20%, to $233 billion. Lee attributes the exports'
increase to the abundance of U.S. oil and reduced U.S. consumption as fuel-efficient vehicles
proliferate. The shrinking petroleum gap was almost entirely responsible for a $63 billion decline in
the nation's overall trade deficit last year to $471.5 billion, the lowest since 2009, Census said. The nation's
diminishing dependence on foreign oil doesn't insulate it from wild price swings, because oil prices are set by global markets. But growing U.S.
production has added to the world's supply and prevented sharp price increases that could have
resulted from political conflicts that reduced oil exports from Iran and Libya since 2012, analysts say.
"U.S. crude oil production has played a major role in offsetting disruptions elsewhere," says Jim
Burkhard, an analyst with research firm IHS CERA. U.S. crude oil production increased to an estimated 7.7 million
barrels a day last year from 6.5 million barrels a day in 2012, according to the Energy Information Administration.
The EIA expects production to rise another 16% by 2020. But Citigroup's Lee expects even more
dramatic gains by then, leaving the U.S. a net exporter of oil and making it virtually self-sufficient in
oil production.
OCS drilling locks-in high gas prices
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)

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

Another consideration is that increased production of oil in the near term comes at the expense of a decreased
capacity to produce oil farther in the future, when prices might be even higher and the ability to reduce
those prices might be valued even more highly by households and businesses. Consumption of oil by
China, India, and Brazil is expected to rise by 2 percent to 4 percent annually between 2008 and 2035; in
contrast, oil consumption is expected to increase by 0.3 percent annually in the United States over that
period.39 Such growth in world consumption is expected to put upward pressure on oil prices (unless sufficient
new sources of oil are identified and developed), causing the value of oil inventories to rise, regardless of whether that oil is
held above ground or left underground in its original reservoirs. Thus, by not developing all of its oil resources now, the
United States is retaining more flexibility in the future should oil prices rise dramatically.
Oil dependence net reduces interventionism allows for cooperation over terrorism
and gives the U.S. a fiscal incentive to not intervene
Miller 10assistant professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma (Gregory D., April 2010, Center for Strategic and International Studies, The Washington Quarterly
33:2, The Security Costs of Energy Independence, http://www.twq.com/10april/docs/10apr_Miller.pdf, CMR)

One counterargument is that the United States has been drawn into a number of conflicts as a result of its
dependence on Middle East oil, such as the reflagging of the Kuwaiti oil tankers in 1987 and the 1991 Persian Gulf War.5 According to this logic, reducing its dependence on
foreign oil would help the United States stay out of such conflicts. Although plausible, a useful exercise is to imagine a future where the United States
is no longer dependent on Middle Eastern states for oil. Although the United States will still have important
economic and political interests in the Middle East, such as Israel, Iraq, and Turkey as a NATO ally, if oil
no longer provides states with some leverage over U.S. foreign policy, then the United States can pursue its
interests with less concern about retaliation by oil-exporting states or by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC). Conversely, as long as oil-exporting states depend on the United States to purchase oil, they are more
inclined to assist the United States in pursuing any of its interests, such as the fight against
terrorism. Consequently, if states no longer depend on the United States as a consumer, they may have less interest
in cooperating with the United States.
Solvency
Production take at least 10 years and wont solve prices star this card
- 10 years for development
- 10 more years for peak production
- wont solve short-term disruption
- benefits are offset by other countries responses
- recent production proves no effect on prices
- impossible to predict
CBO (Congressional Budget Office) 12 (Energy Security in the United States, May,
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdf, CMR)

Increase Domestic Oil Production. Policies designed to increase the domestic production of oil could lower world oil prices
over the long run (though the effect would probably be small), but they would probably not reduce the vulnerability of U.S.
households and businesses to disruptions in oil supplies. Such policies could include opening more of the Outer
Continental Shelf or the Arctic to drilling, expediting regulatory approval of applications to drill, or reducing the fees charged to private firms
(for example, the royalties paid to the government for each barrel of oil produced) when the government makes oil underlying federal lands
available for extraction.34
Those policies would probably increase the amount of oil brought to the world market, which would lower world oil prices for the time that the
additional supply was available. The magnitude of the price reduction would depend on the volume of oil produced and the response by other
countries to the introduction of the new supply. To illustrate, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that opening the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge to drilling could boost domestic oil production by as much as 0.5 to 1.5 million barrels per day (an increase of 9
percent to 27 percent of U.S. production based on 2010 production levels), which could lower world oil prices by $0.41 to $1.44 per barrel in
2025, relative to a base case in which oil was $65 per barrel and assuming no change in oil production elsewhere in the world; that decline
would be expected to reduce gasoline prices by 1 to 3 cents per gallon.35 Production would not commence until 10 years
after development was first allowed, and peak production would not occur until 10 years after that .
Some oil fields on land can be developed more quickly (within a few years), but deepwater oil fields are expected to have the largest quantity of
oil. Such development would not be expected to offset temporary supply disruptions but could increase long-run
production in the United States.
EIA further estimates that such an increase in production would be largely offset by a corresponding decrease in
output from other large oil-producing countries, resulting in little observable change in the price of oil.
For example, Khalid Al Falih, chief executive officer of Saudi Aramco, recently said that Saudi Arabia would reduce its planned
output capacity expansion given massive capacity expansions coming out of countries like Brazil [and] Iraq.36
Thus, increasing production in the United States might not increase the worlds oil supply substantially or
lower the price of oil significantly. For example, oil and gasoline prices have not fallen over the past few years
despite an increase in U.S. oil production during that period. Moreover, because any new productive capacity in
the United States would be controlled by private firms and not the government (as it is for OPEC members), that new
capacity would be used in amounts determined by the owners and not necessarily held as spare capacity to
offset disruptions.
U.S. government agencies estimate that the amount of oil that is technically feasible to recover in the United States is 162 billion barrels (22
billion barrels of which has already been discovered); according to recent estimates, technically recoverable oil resources in the United States
are equivalent to 78 years of supply at 2010 domestic production levels, or 29 years of supply if produced at the level of current
consumption.37 Determining the effect on world prices of finding and producing additional oil is difficult, given the
uncertainty inherent in bringing the oil to market and the possible reaction of other oil producing
countries.
Production is too expensive and any benefit is 20 years 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 equipment
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)

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 cant refine the oil we would extract . In a June speech, President George W. Bush noted that, Refineries are the
critical link between crude oil and the gasoline and diesel fuel that drivers put in their tanks. Yet refineries
are already so stretched that last year, the United States had to import almost 150 million barrels of gasoline. The
Wall Street Journal reported oil companies are not building new refineries because it would be bad for their
bottom line: Building a new refinery from scratch, Exxon believes, would be bad for long-term
business.