Oil DA FILE

8/14/2019 Oil DA FILE

1/64

LMDIT 2008 Oil DA __of__Team Sparta Stacy

Index 1

Russia 1nc 2-5

Middle East 6-8

Venezuela 9-10

Nigeria 11-12

Canada/Mexico 13-14

Uniqueness Ext 15-17

Link Ext 18-21

Internal Link Ext 22-24

Impact Ext 25-31

Aff Answers 32-58

Non-U

Link Turns

Impact Defense

No Link

1


2/64


Russia Module

A) Uniqueness: The United States is highly dependent and currently

imports over $300 billion of oil from foreign nations and the numberis not going down any time soon

Ahmad 08 (Business Wire. March 7, 2008.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_March_7/ai_n24380607)

With the run-up in oil prices over the past four years, the United States is paying dearlyfor its dependence on imported oil, Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW) reports in itslatest issue. The US oil import bill last year came to some US$327 billion, and should easilytop US$400 billion this year. That's an increase of some 300% since 2002, according to PIW.

Last year, PIW reckons that the US paid out a record US$245 billion for about 10 million

barrels per day of crude oil imports, and another US$82 billion for about 3.5 million bpdof imported oil products. This year it looks like paying out even more, with domesticcrude production continuing to fall, demand for imports of high-priced transportfuels remaining strong, and oil prices around 30% higher year-on-year so far in2008.The increase to an estimated US$440 billion for 2008 is based on an average US$90per barrel crude oil price for the year. In 2002, before the current bull market for oilbegan, US oil imports cost less than US$103 billion. With oil prices this year as strongor stronger than in 2007, any moderation in the US import bill must come from reduced

volumes. While oil demand growth has slowed in recent years due to both high pricesand greater fuel efficiency, the higher quality of crude oil imports that US refinersrequire and the emphasis on high-quality transport fuels in the product import mixare likely to keep upward pressure on import costs even if volumes are stable,according to PIW. Although "energy security" and "dependency on the MiddleEast" get the attention in the American national debate over oil imports, huge andrapidly rising costs are of greater immediate economic significance, PIW says.Relatively secure supplies from Canada and Mexico account for about one third ofcrude imports.

B) Link: Cross-Supply the Aff advantage evidence that indicates that

Alternative Energy Incentives would decrease U.S. dependence on oil.

2


3/64


C) Internal Link:Russia dependent on U.S. oil imports

Max Jakobson, 2004 (THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION PLENARY MEETING WARSAW,RUSSIA AND THE TRILATERAL COUNTRIES, RESTORING RUSSIA AS A GREAT POWER,ttp://www.trilateral.org/AnnMtgs/PROGRAMS/warsawpdf_folder/jakobson_russia_power.pdf)

When we judge the Russian economy,we have to take into account the keyimportance of oil. Part of Russian export earnings is very muchdependent on oil exports, oil products, oil and gas. More than 50% ofexport earnings are derived from oil and about 20% of minerals andraw materials, which leaves a very small part of exports for industrialproducts. These are revealing figures because we can see how totallydependent the Russian economy today is on the price of oil. The price of oilhas gone up and up in recent years but I suppose one day there may be a stop. And I am reminded of whathappened in the 1970s, when the oil price was suddenly raised very high and the consequences in the

Soviet Union were far reaching. It was believed that the Soviet Union was becoming an important

economic power, which was a total illusion and led to a standstill by the end of the 70s. I am not sayingthat this is necessarily beingrepeated now, but certainly the importance of oil is decisive.

3


4/64


D) Impact: Russian econ collapse causes escalatory nuclear war

David '99 (STEVEN R. DAVID is a Professor of Political Science at The JohnsHopkins University. "Saving America from the Coming Civil Wars." Foreign Affairs

January, 1999 / February, 1999.)

AT NO TIME since the civil war of1918 -- 20 has Russia been closer to bloodyconflict than it is today. The fledgling government confronts a vast array ofproblems without the power to take effective action. For 70 years, the Soviet Union

operated a strong state apparatus, anchored by the KGB and the Communist Party.Now its disintegration has created a power vacuum that has yet to be filled. Unable

to rely on popular ideology or coercion to establish control, the government mustprove itself to the people and establish its authority on the basis of its performance.

But the Yeltsin administration has abjectly failed to do so, and it cannot meet the

most basic needs of the Russian people. Russians know they can no longer look tothe state for personal security, law enforcement, education, sanitation, health care,or even electrical power. In the place of government authority, criminal groups --

the Russian Mafia -- increasingly hold sway. Expectations raised by the collapseof communism have been bitterly disappointed, and Moscow's inability to governcoherently raises the specter of civil unrest.

If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a primecause. From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a societywhere, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in

1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a

month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue itis due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's

cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law andwhere subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to anAmerican-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massivedevaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show, Russia's condition is

even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoicRussian people will soon run out of patience.

A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet dayscivilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party

out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile

foundation -- personal friendships between government leaders and militarycommanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous

low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medicalcare. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological splitbetween the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the riskthat disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment ofsoldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties

between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow

4


5/64


ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages.Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the

armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power andMoscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support.

Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of theRussian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to

erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in asystem that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself

unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the

periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentiveto pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters ofthem already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to

sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies maymotivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt

against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence

throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds withforce, civil war is likely.

Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United

States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia -- even thoughin decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled RussianFederation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China.Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armedstruggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from thefighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environmentof much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even

worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for theprivations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce anotherhorrific regime.

Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russiacould lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state hasever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grimconsequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weaponsand the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scatteredthroughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of

any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weakgrip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to awide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclearweapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it ishard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos thatwould follow a Russian civil war

5


6/64


Middle East Module

Saudi and Iran

A) Uniqueness: The United States is highly dependent and currentlyimports over $300 billion of oil from foreign nations and the numberis not going down any time soon


With the run-up in oil prices over the past four years, the United States is paying dearly for its

dependence on imported oil, Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW) reports in its latestissue. The US oil import bill last year came to some US$327 billion, and should easily top US$400billion this year. That's an increase of some 300% since 2002, according to PIW. Last year, PIW

reckons that the US paid out a record US$245 billion for about 10 million barrels per day of crude oil

imports, and another US$82 billion for about 3.5 million bpd of imported oil products.This year it looks like paying out even more, with domestic crude production continuingto fall, demand for imports of high-priced transport fuels remaining strong, and oil pricesaround 30% higher year-on-year so far in 2008.The increase to an estimated US$440 billion for 2008 is based on an average US$90 perbarrel crude oil price for the year. In 2002, before the current bull market for oil began,US oil imports cost less than US$103 billion. With oil prices this year as strong or strongerthan in 2007, any moderation in the US import bill must come from reduced volumes

. While oildemand growth has slowed in recent years due to both high prices and greater fuelefficiency, the higher quality of crude oil imports that US refiners require and theemphasis on high-quality transport fuels in the product import mix are likely to keepupward pressure on import costs even if volumes are stable, according to PIW. Although"energy security" and "dependency on the Middle East" get the attention in the Americannational debate over oil imports, huge and rapidly rising costs are of greater immediateeconomic significance, PIW says. Relatively secure supplies from Canada and Mexicoaccount for about one third of crude imports.

Link: Cross-supply the Aff evidence that indicates U.S. oildependence will decrease as a result of plan.

6


7/64


B) Internal Link: US decrease in oil dependence leads toMiddle East producers alignment with China and getWMDsGALLUFT October 20, 2005 (EXECUTIVE DIRECTORINSTITUTE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL SECURITY (IAGS)CO-CHAIRSETAMERICA FREE COALITIONPresented beforeSENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON NEAR EASTERN AND SOUTHASIAN

AFFAIRS )The Middle East is gradually shifting from being a unipolarregion in which the U.S. enjoys uncontested hegemony toa multipolar region. The U.S. will face more competition from China and India over access to Middle East oil. Throughout its history, the Middle Easthas been the center of an imperial tug of war with major implications for the regions inhabitants. This was the case during the Cold War years. In the

decade after the fall of the Soviet Union the U.S. enjoyed uncontested hegemony in a unipolar Middle East. The rise of China andIndia is driving the Middle East back to multipolarity. In thecoming years the Middle East will turn increasingly toAsia to market its oil and gas. By 2015 it will provide 70% of Asias oil. By far the most important growth market for countrieslike Iran and Saudi Arabia is China. With 1.3 billion people and an economy growing at a phenomenal rate, China is today the worlds second largest

oil consumer and is becoming heavily dependent on imported oil. By 2030 China is expected to import as much oil

as America does today. To fuel its growing economy China is following Americas footsteps, subjugating its foreign policy to its energyneeds. China attempts to gain a foothold in the Middle East and build up long-term strategiclinks with countries with which the U.S. is at odds like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. Though some optimists thinkthat Chinas pursuit of energy could present an opportunity to enhance cooperation, integration and interdependence with the U.S., there are ample

signs that China and the U.S. are already on a collision course over oil . This will have profound implications for thefuture and stability of the Middle East and for Americas posture in the region. For China the biggest prize in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, home ofa quarter of the worlds reserves. Since 9/11, a deep tension in U.S.-Saudi relations has provided the Chinese with an opportunity to win the heart of

the House of Saud. The Saudis fear that iftheir citizens again perpetrate a terror attack in the U.S., there would be noalternative for the U.S. but to terminate its long-standing commitment to the monarchy and perhapseven use military force against it. The Saudis realize that to forestall such a scenario they can no longer rely solely on the U.S. todefend the regime and must diversify their security portfolio. In their search for a new patron, they might find Chinathe most fitting and willing candidate. China has also set its sights on Iran. Last year China and Iran entered a $70 billionnatural gasdeal that Beijing sees as critical to continued economic expansion. China has already announced that it will block any effort to impose

sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. No doubt that as Chinas oil demand grows so will its involvement in Middle East politics. Chinais likely to provide not only a diplomatic support but also weapons, including assistance in the development ofWMD. In sum, theprospect of a region, scarred by decades of rivalries, turning once again into an arena of competition between two or more of the major powers couldwell be one of the most important geo-strategic developments of the 21-Century, with profound implications for U.S. national security

7


8/64


C) Impact:1) The Middle East will use WMDs for terrorism

Gilmore in 2003(Gerry J. [Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,addresses National Defense University Class of 2003 graduates at a June 10 ceremony at FortMcNair, Washington, D.C. Photo by Sgt. Linda Tsang, USA]. American Forces Press ServiceWar on Terrorism Is 'Toughest Challenge' Yet, Myers Says,http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=28884 )

The war against global terrorism continues, Myers pointed out, noting, "there are still terrorists outthere who want to do us harm."

Terrorists, the general emphasized, "will use violence against the innocent." In recent weeks, hepointed out, more than 50 people, including Muslims, Christians and Jews were killed in terrorattacks against civilians in Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Israel.

U.S. and coalition forces have achieved significant victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet it isparamount, Myers emphasized, "that we don't let our successes lull us into a sense ofcomplacency." He emphasized that "the war on terrorism is far from over."

Another modern-day threat to global security involves the proliferation of weapons of massdestruction, the general remarked, noting that some countries with WMD programs "would let theseweapons fall into the hands of terrorists."

Civilized nations of the world "simply cannot afford to let this happen," the JCS chairman said.Enemies of peace, he continued, would likely use WMDs to kill innocent civilians, destabilize theglobal economy, or simply for blackmail.

2) Terrorism sucks balls. It threatens survival as we know itAlexander 03(Yonah, Director of Inter-University Terrorism Studies, Washington Times, August 28, 2003.http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=983842&highlight=Alexander )

Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically

that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude andimplications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the UnitedStates and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant ratherthan a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that onSeptember 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terroristsstriking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israeland its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorismtriggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack

at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revokedcease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countriesaffected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There aremany reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism'sexpansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, doublestandards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terroristpropaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have

introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. Theinternationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we

8
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=28884http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=983842&highlight=Alexanderhttp://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=28884http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=983842&highlight=Alexander


9/64


have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g.biological, chemical, radiological, nuclearandcyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.

9


10/64


Venezuela Module




Last year, PIW reckons that the US paid out a record US$245 billion for about 10 million

barrels per day of crude oil imports, and another US$82 billion for about 3.5 million bpdof imported oil products. This year it looks like paying out even more, with domesticcrude production continuing to fall, demand for imports of high-priced transportfuels remaining strong, and oil prices around 30% higher year-on-year so far in2008.The increase to an estimated US$440 billion for 2008 is based on an average US$90per barrel crude oil price for the year. In 2002, before the current bull market for oilbegan, US oil imports cost less than US$103 billion. With oil prices this year as strongor stronger than in 2007, any moderation in the US import bill must come from reduced

volumes. While oil demand growth has slowed in recent years due to both high pricesand greater fuel efficiency, the higher quality of crude oil imports that US refiners

require and the emphasis on high-quality transport fuels in the product import mixare likely to keep upward pressure on import costs even if volumes are stable,according to PIW. Although "energy security" and "dependency on the MiddleEast" get the attention in the American national debate over oil imports, huge andrapidly rising costs are of greater immediate economic significance, PIW says.Relatively secure supplies from Canada and Mexico account for about one third ofcrude imports.

B) Link: Cross-supply the aff evidence that means they would decrease U.S. oildependence

10


11/64


C) Internal Link: Venezuelan economy is strongly dependent on oil

exports

CEPMLP Annual Review 2001

(http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/car/html/car5arti6.htm)

The oil industry is a very capital intensive one, involving big projects with heavyinvestment in fixed assets. The profitability of any oil project is highly dependent on themarket price. Oil prices have proved to be very volatile and subject not only to market forces but also to political, climatic andenvironmental factors, among other. As a consequence, companies find themselves in the need to protect against the risk of fluctuatingoil prices. One way of achieving this objective is by means of integration, where risks are spread over several sectors of the industry,and the potential losses in one stage of the chain can be overlapped by gains in the others. This is a risk management decision knownas diversification.

As stated previously, Venezuelan economy is strongly dependent on oil exports to theUnited States, which represent an important percentage of its total exports, as well as ofthe GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Hence, its economy in general can be impacted byvolatile oil prices. According to the company's directives, PDVSA's integrationiststrategy provides an element of security of supply for consuming countries whileensuring market outlet for the producing countries (in this case, Venezuela).

D) Impact: Economic collapse causes shootouts and

extinction

Bearden 00T.E., LTC U.S. Army (Retired), ["The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,"http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm, June 24]

History bears out thatdesperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the finaleconomic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity andnumber of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals ofweapons of mass destruction

(WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to bereleased. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodicsuicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate

responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown

for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception

of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MADcoin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the onlychance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-

emptive strikesand try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMDexchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, arealready on site within the United States itself. The resulting greatArmageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of thebiosphere, at least for many decades.

11
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htmhttp://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm


12/64


Nigeria Module




Last year, PIW reckons that the US paid out a record US$245 billion for about 10 millionbarrels per day of crude oil imports, and another US$82 billion for about 3.5 million bpdof imported oil products. This year it looks like paying out even more, with domesticcrude production continuing to fall, demand for imports of high-priced transportfuels remaining strong, and oil prices around 30% higher year-on-year so far in2008.The increase to an estimated US$440 billion for 2008 is based on an average US$90per barrel crude oil price for the year. In 2002, before the current bull market for oilbegan, US oil imports cost less than US$103 billion. With oil prices this year as strongor stronger than in 2007, any moderation in the US import bill must come from reduced

volumes. While oil demand growth has slowed in recent years due to both high prices

and greater fuel efficiency, the higher quality of crude oil imports that US refinersrequire and the emphasis on high-quality transport fuels in the product import mixare likely to keep upward pressure on import costs even if volumes are stable,according to PIW. Although "energy security" and "dependency on the MiddleEast" get the attention in the American national debate over oil imports, huge andrapidly rising costs are of greater immediate economic significance, PIW says.Relatively secure supplies from Canada and Mexico account for about one third ofcrude imports.

B) Link: Cross-supply the aff evidence that means they would

decrease U.S. oil dependence

12


13/64


C) Internal Link: U.S. Oil imports Is 80% Of Nigerias Economy

Fawole, William 2006(The Politics of Oil, Plunder and Poverty in Nigeria, http://www.cpsa-

acsp.ca/pdfs/2006%20Abstracts.pdf)

Oil has generated great national wealth for the Nigeria state. Petro-dollars assured

Nigerias global prominence as Africas largest and the worlds eleventh largest

oil-producer. The Nigerian economy is heavily-dependent on oil exports and foreign

personnel and technology for oil extraction. Oil accounts for some 80% of all

government revenues. Despite its enormous oil-wealth, some 70% of the population live in poverty. Since 9/11 the

United States has characterized African oil as of national security interest. It is

estimated that by 2015 some 25 percent of US oil will come from Africa, primarily from Nigeria andAngola, followed by Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and Congo-Brazzaville. Instead of creating national social well being, the petro-dollarwindfalls have sealed Nigerias fate as a conquered state, subjugated by civilian and military elites, and administered to satisfy the

prebendal obsessions of its domestic conquerors, as well as the interests of the worlds largest multinational oil companies includingExxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco, Shell, Elf, Agip and ConocoPhillips. Post-colonial elites, both civilian and military, have plundered the

national wealth for personal aggrandizement. Corruption and impunity became hallmarks of politics and governance dominated bythese elites and their trans-national oil alliances. This paper will do three interrelated things: first, it will interrogate the politicaleconomy of oil in Nigeria; second it will examine the unholy alliance between national civilian-military elites and trans-national actorsin pillaging Nigerias oil-wealth; and, third, it will examine the implications of these dynamics for social well being in Nigerias oil-communities.

D) Impact: Economic collapse causes shootouts and extinction


History bears out thatdesperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the finaleconomic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and

number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals ofweapons of mass destruction(WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to bereleased. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodicsuicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate



of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MADcoin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the onlychance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikesand try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMDexchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, arealready on site within the United States itself. The resulting greatArmageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the

biosphere, at least for many decades.

13
http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/pdfs/2006%20Abstracts.pdfhttp://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/pdfs/2006%20Abstracts.pdfhttp://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htmhttp://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/pdfs/2006%20Abstracts.pdfhttp://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/pdfs/2006%20Abstracts.pdfhttp://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm


14/64


Canada/Mexico Module

A) Uniqueness and Link: The United States is highly dependent andcurrently imports over $300 billion of oil from foreign nations and thenumber is not going down any time soon



Last year, PIW reckons that the US paid out a record US$245 billion for about 10 millionbarrels per day of crude oil imports, and another US$82 billion for about 3.5 million bpdof imported oil products. This year it looks like paying out even more, with domesticcrude production continuing to fall, demand for imports of high-priced transportfuels remaining strong, and oil prices around 30% higher year-on-year so far in2008.The increase to an estimated US$440 billion for 2008 is based on an average US$90per barrel crude oil price for the year. In 2002, before the current bull market for oilbegan, US oil imports cost less than US$103 billion. With oil prices this year as strongor stronger than in 2007, any moderation in the US import bill must come from reduced

volumes. While oil demand growth has slowed in recent years due to both high prices

and greater fuel efficiency, the higher quality of crude oil imports that US refinersrequire and the emphasis on high-quality transport fuels in the product import mixare likely to keep upward pressure on import costs even if volumes are stable,according to PIW. Although "energy security" and "dependency on the MiddleEast" get the attention in the American national debate over oil imports, huge andrapidly rising costs are of greater immediate economic significance, PIW says.Relatively secure supplies from Canada and Mexico account for about one thirdof crude imports.

B) Internal Link: Cross-supply the aff evidence that means they

would decrease U.S. oil dependence

14


15/64


C) Impact: Economic collapse causes shootouts andextinction


History bears out thatdesperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the finaleconomic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity andnumber of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals ofweapons of mass destruction(WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to bereleased. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodicsuicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate



of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MADcoin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only

chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikesand try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMDexchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, arealready on site within the United States itself. The resulting greatArmageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of thebiosphere, at least for many decades.

15
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htmhttp://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm


16/64


Uniqueness Extensions

Uniqueness : The USs Oil Supply for the Future

Burnett in 2006 (H. Sterling, Ph.D., is a senior fellow with the National Center forPolicy Analysis. In the Public Interest: Tapping the Outer Continental Shelf, No. 563,July 14, 2006)

The United States needs oil and natural gas. Oil is fuel and a feedstock for plastics,pharmaceuticals, fertilizers and lubricants. Natural gas is used for cooking, heating homesand water, and is also critical to chemical manufacturing. The best estimates indicate that

by 2025 U.S. oil consumption will grow by one-third even with the rise of renewablebiofuels and electricity demand will increase by more than 45 percent, with naturalgas fueling much of the new electric power generation. Where will Americans find theadditional oil and gas they need? Much of it lies under the deep waters of the U.S. Outer

Continental Shelf (OCS). Only politics prevents the development of decades worth of oil andgas supplies. The Problem of Oil. Since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, the UnitedStates has become dependent upon foreign nations for a majority of its oil. Many of these oil-richcountries are either politically unstable, have governments hostile to U.S. interests or haveeconomies that are mostly unfree, meaning political calculations rather than market demanddictate the pace of exploration and development.

16


17/64


18/64


Right now, the U.S. is desperately dependent on foreign oil. It creates various

problems, as far as foreign policy goes.

David L. Greene, Engineering Science and Technology Division, ORNL. 2005. Oil Dependency High Now: U.S.Oil Dpendencehttp://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v38_1_05/article04.shtml

U.S. oil imports are at an all-time high, accounting for approximately 57% of domesticconsumption. Americans today import some 12 million barrels per day at a cost that in2004 skyrocketed above $50 a barrel.ORNL researchers have made important contributions to understanding and addressing the challenge of oildependence.Imported crude oil as a percent of U.S. consumption.Using a scientific approach to define the problem, the researchers have advised the Department of Energy on the

appropriate size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, contributed to National Academy of Sciences studies of thepotential to increase vehicle fuel economy, and produced comprehensive estimates of the costs of oil consumption.

America's growing dependence on foreign oil represents an interrelated combination of

factors that together create economic, political, and security problems of the highestorder. Oil supply is increasingly determined by a small number of nations that wield a near monopoly over worldproduction. An insatiable demand, driven in part by the robust growth of Asian economies,makes American industry and consumers even more vulnerable to the recent shock ofhigher oil prices. Whether America can remove this vulnerability will depend on substantially reducing thevolume of oil imported and consumed, an ambitious goal tied directly to making available affordable and practical

petroleum substitutes.After oil prices fell from $40/bbl in 1985 to $20/bbl in 1986, many analysts predicted the end of the Organization ofPetroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). By 1995, some were confident that the problem of oil dependence was a short-term anomaly.ORNL researchers disagreed. A three-parameter equation published in 1992 by Heinrich von Stackelberg cautionedthat a producer's ability to influence prices depends on: 1) market share, 2) the responsiveness of demand to price and,3) other producers' ability to increase supply when prices rise.The report suggested that the market's ability to respond to oil prices in the short run (1-2 years) is about one-tenth of a

long-run capability. OPEC could double, triple, even quadruple prices for 24 months but could not sustain such highprices for an extended period. Absent events such as military conflict, OPEC's only recourse to sustaining historicallyhigh oil prices is to cut production. Cutting production, however, would mean a loss of market share and thereby a lossof market power.From 1979 to 1985 OPEC's share of the world oil market shrank from 50% to 30% as members (especially SaudiArabia) continuously cut production to maintain high prices. But loss of market share did not alter the fact that OPECmembers held 75% of the world's proven reserves and approximately 55% of the ultimate resources of conventional oil.Unless world oil demand could be curbed or economical substitutes to oil quickly developed, OPEC would inevitablyregain lost market share. In 1999-2000, with help from Russia, Norway, and Mexico, OPEC engineered a doubling ofworld oil prices.\In a 1995 ORNL report, "The Outlook for U.S. Oil Dependence," Don Jones, Paul Leiby, and I simulated the impact ofa two-year supply shock similar to those that occurred in 1973-74 and 1979-80, but starting in 2005 and ending in2006. The model predicted that the shock would cause oil prices to jump from $20/bbl in 2004 to $50/bbl in 2005,costing the U.S. economy an estimated half a trillion dollars.

Ifthe U.S. thirst for oil continues unabated, Americans increasingly will be forced toextract petroleum from unconventional sources. Oil sands and heavy oils are already in the early stages ofexploitation in Canada and Venezuela. Continued demand will lead to oil shale, coal, or methane for liquid fuels. Sucha path might allow OPEC to remain the lowest cost producer of oil and to sustain for several decades the capacity tosupply a third or more of the world market.The world could, of course, pursue a different path leading to low-carbon energy sources or even hydrogen fuel.Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to direct future energy transitions on the scale required for a global economy.Developing the right technologies is a critical but probably insufficient solution. These technologies would need to beaccompanied by a fundamental rethinking, on an international level, of how we acquire, distribute, and use our planet'senergy resources.David L. Greene, Engineering Science and Technology Division, ORNL.

18
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v38_1_05/article04.shtmlhttp://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v38_1_05/article04.shtmlhttp://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v38_1_05/article04.shtml


19/64


Link Extensions

Lifting Prohibitions on Oil Exploration would Reduce VulnerabilityBurnett in 2006 (H. Sterling, Ph.D., is a senior fellow with the National Center forPolicy Analysis. In the Public Interest: Tapping the Outer Continental Shelf, No. 563,July 14, 2006)U.S. Energy: Vulnerable to Nature. U.S. energy problems are compounded by thevulnerability of our domestic oil and natural gas supplies to natures whims. HurricanesKatrina and Rita highlighted the fact that from an energy perspective, Americans haveput too many eggs in one very fragile basket the Gulf of Mexico. Each year energyprices spike out of fear that the ports, refineries, pipelines and offshore drilling platformsin the Gulf of Mexico will be damaged during the hurricane season. Unfortunately,successive Congresses and administrations have banned new production off most of the

U.S. coast. As a result: The storm-ridden Gulf of Mexico is the source of nearly 30percent of the oil and 20 percent of the natural gas produced off U.S. shores. One reasonfor high fuel prices is that facilities that produce or transport 21 percent of the Gulfs oiland 13 percent of its natural gas are still closed due to damage during the 2005 hurricaneseason. Improving Energy Security: Opening the OCS. Much of Americas remaininglarge deposits of oil and natural gas lie offshore. Unfortunately, other than portions ofthe Gulf of Mexico, coastal areas are off-limits to new oil and gas exploration andproduction due to various federal moratoria. Lifting these prohibitions would be one ofthe most effective actions Congress could take to ensure long-term economic growthwhile also decreasing Americas vulnerability to foreign powers. The InteriorDepartments Minerals Management Service (MMS) has estimated that the OCS

contains:

19


20/64


Offshore Drilling and Pipelines are Environmentally Sound comparedto Tankers

Burnett in 2006 (H. Sterling, Ph.D., is a senior fellow with the National Center forPolicy Analysis. In the Public Interest: Tapping the Outer Continental Shelf, No. 563,July 14, 2006)Offshore Environmental Concerns. Federal moratoria were put in place due toenvironmental concerns. Offshore natural gas production has never harmed U.S.coastlines, but offshore oil platforms have occasionally spilled or leaked substantialamounts of crude oil. However, technology has improved greatly since the earliestplatforms were built. As proof, very little oil spilled into the Gulf after HurricanesKatrina and Rita. Although the storms destroyed 111 production platforms and seriouslydamaged another 52 platforms and 457 pipelines, the MMS found only six hurricane-related oil spills of at least 1,000 barrels none of which damaged shores or wildlife.

Since platforms and pipelines are less prone to spills than tankers, increasing the amountof oil produced in the OCS and delivered through pipelines to shore could beenvironmentally beneficial. The amount of oil spilled from all sources has decreaseddramatically in recent years; however, since 1991, tankers have still spilled three times asmuch oil as offshore platforms and more than twice as much as pipelines. Furthermore,when tankers leak, run aground or founder and sink, they tend to do so in port or nearshore, resulting in more severe environmental damage. Of all the sources of petroleumreleased into the ocean, offshore platforms have less frequent spills and leak less oil thanany other. Indeed, for the past 20 years, less than 1/1,000th of one percent of the oilproduced in U.S. state or federal waters has spilled.

20


21/64


The US Needs to Act on Offshore Drilling Now

Burnett in 2006 (H. Sterling, Ph.D., is a senior fellow with the National Center for

Policy Analysis. In the Public Interest: Tapping the Outer Continental Shelf, No. 563,July 14, 2006)Congressional Action on the OCS. Accordingly, Congress and the president shouldallow new offshore exploration and production. Indeed, the United States is the onlyindustrialized country with substantial coastlines not actively seeking new offshore oiland gas deposits. Canada and even economically-backward Cuba are moving forwardwith plans to drill in offshore areas that abut U.S. coastal waters. Since pools of oil donot respect international boundaries, it is almost certainly true that Canada and Cuba willbe accessing oil that could otherwise be developed by and benefit Americans. Currently,production in the OCS is a net loser for coastal states. The federal government receivesall of the royalties, leases and taxes, while states bear most of the risks. If spills occur,

the states lose tourist revenues and their coastal environments suffer. However, in theface of high gasoline and electricity prices, consumer demand for action appears to beforcing Congresss hand. A bill that passed the U. S. House of Representatives on June29, 2006, would end the federal moratoria on new drilling at least with state buy-in.The bill: Lifts all leasing bans beyond 100 miles from state shores; Allows leasingbetween 50 miles and 100 miles of state shores, unless a state acts to block such leases,and allows the question of leasing in those areas to be revisited every five years; andpermanently bans exploration and production within 50 miles of state shores unless astate chooses to opt-out of the restriction. States that choose to allow drilling off theirshores would share the revenue with the federal government. Initially, coastal stateswould get 25 percent of the proceeds. Beginning in 2010, however, their share of

revenue would increase 5 percent per year, but never exceed 75 percent. At first, somestates will likely continue to ban oil and gas production off their coasts. However,legislators in those states will have to explain their decision to their constituents the nexttime their economy falters, state budgets are tight and cuts in programs are made, whilethe coffers of states that allowed drilling are full.

21


22/64


ENERGY POLICIES HAVE CONTINUED AMERICA'S RELIANCE ON FOSSILFUELS, WORSENING GLOBAL WARMING

Congressional Documents and PublicationsMay 5, 2008(SECTION: U.S. SENATEDOCUMENTS, LENGTH: 2198 word, SENATE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS CENTER, Bush RepublicanPolicies Have Weakened America's Energy Security)

2005 Energy Bill Gave Billions in Subsidies to Fossil Fuel Industry. "On the eve ofthe 35th anniversary of the first Earth Day, the House of Representatives has passeda grossly porkified energy bill that doles out billions in subsidies to fossil-fuelindustries, shortchanges alternative energy and efficiency initiatives, and indemnifies makers of the gasoline additiveMTBE against liability for groundwater contamination. And this time the bill may actually have a chance of passing in theSenate, perhaps as early as next month, after years of stalemate." [Salon.com, 4/22/05]

Union of Concerned Scientists Estimated Burning of Fossil Fuels Produces 75Percent of Annual CO2 Emissions from Human Activities. "The scientific consensus is in. Our

planet is warming, and we are helping make it happen by adding more heat-trapping gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), tothe atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuel (oil, coal, and natural gas) alone accounts for about 75 percent of annual CO2emissions from human activities. Deforestation-the cutting and burning of forests that trap and store carbon-accounts for aboutanother 20 percent." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 9/30/05]

IPCC Warned Consequences of Global Warming Could Be Far-Reaching and Irreversible. "The UN's Nobel-winning panel on climate change on Friday completed a draft report that said theconsequences of global warming could be far-reaching and irreversible. The report by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) encapsulates a massive review of the global-warming issue, with the goalof guiding policymakers for the next five years. Human activities 'could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate changes andimpacts,' the agreed text said." [Agence France-Presse, 11/16/07]

*IPCC Report Warned All Countries Would Be Affected, Producing Drought, Cyclones and Sea Levels That Could CauseFlooding, Hunger and Water Shortages. "Heatwaves, rainstorms, drought, tropical cyclones and surgesin sea level are among the events expected to become more frequent, morewidespread and/or more intense this century. As a result, water shortages, hunger,flooding and damage to homes will be a heightened threat. 'All cuntries' will be affected, saysthe IPCC. Those bearing the brunt, though, will be poor countries which incidentally bear the least responsibility for creatingthe problem." [Agence France-Presse, 11/16/07]

Military Experts Warn Projected Climate Change Poses a Serious Threat ToAmerica's National Security. "Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security.The predicted effects of climate change over the coming decades include extremeweather events, drought, flooding, sea level rise, retreating glaciers, habitat shifts,

and the increased spread of life-threatening diseases. These conditions have the potential to disruptour way of life and to force changes in the way we keep ourselves safe and secure." [Military Advisory Board, "NationalSecurity and the Threat of Climate Change," 4/07]

Military Experts Predict Climate Change Will Act as Multiplier for Instability inMost Volatile Regions of the World. "Climate change acts as a threat multiplier forinstability in some of the most volatile regions of the world. Projected climate change willseriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, causingwidespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states. Economic and environmental conditions in already fragileareas will further erode as food production declines, diseases increase, clean water becomes increasingly scarce, and large

22


23/64


populations move in search of resources." [Military Advisory Board, "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,"4/07]

23


24/64


Internal Link Extensions

China and India economy depends on oil growth

Business Wire, March 5, 2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008

My job, as the President of the country, is to put pro-growth policies in place. But we're dependent upon oil, andso as our economy grows, it's going to create more demand for oil -- same with China,same with India, same with other growing countries. It should be obvious to you all that the demand isoutstripping supply, which causes prices to go up. And it's making it harder here in America for working families to save, and forfarmers to be prosperous, and for small businesses to grow.

Big Oil key to Econ

Copley News Service May 23, 2008 ( Friday 2:45 PM EST BYLINE: Malcolm Berko,SECTION: TAKING STOCK,LENGTH: 906 words, Grain for oil? Chew it over)

Dear W.C.: In the 1960s, Big Oil had accumulated mountains of debt, earnings were generallyweak and the future looked barren with oil trading at $5 and $6 a barrel. So the Energy Crisis of 1971-72was a warning shot across the bow that Congress, for reasons that may be criminally suspect, blithely chose to ignore.

As the U.S. trudged through a painful recession, the price of crude tripled while Big

Oil raped the consumer and produced record profits. Then in 1981, we had our SecondEnergy Crisis. The cover of National Geographic portrayed an oil derrick beneath aheadline that screamed: "Oil at $100 a Barrel Possible." Oil tripled again to $50-$60 abarrel and while Congress twiddled its thumbs, Exxon, BP, Shell, etc. ransomed their oil to Americans,reported obscene profits and the economy tanked into the great recession of 1981-1982.

The Third Energy Crisis began in 1991 as a result of the Persian Gulf War. Big Oil cozenedrecord profits from the crisis while our representatives sat in their Congressional"snivel" chairs and the economy writhed through another recession.

And it happened again in 2007: oil at $125 a barrel, gas at $4 a gallon, Big Oil's enormousprofits sucked the consumer dry and the economy may be sinking into its mostsevere recession since the Great Depression.

Four major energy crises and Congress has done nothing in the last 37 years to reduce our oil dependency. It's enough to convince

folks that most members of Congress and Big Oil are joined at the lips and hips. And when Rep. Edward Markey,chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence, was forced to admitthat "Exxon-Mobile is resisting the renewable energy revolution,"

24


25/64


Bush Republican Policies Have Weakened America's Energy Security


Seven years of Bush Republican policy failures have weakened America's energysecurity. America's dependence on oil undermines our national security interests byfunding terrorism and hostile nations, as well as limiting America's strategic options. America'seconomy is so dependent on oil - and our energy infrastructure is so vulnerable tonatural disasters and attacks - that high prices and other crises can cripple our nation.

But the biggest threat to America's energy security is our continued reliance on fossilfuels, which contributes overwhelmingly to man-made global warming. President

Bush

and his allies in Congress have had seven years to strengthen America's energysecurity, but have done just the opposite. Democrats believe we must invest in alternative energy in orderto end our dependence on oil, stem the tide of global warming and strengthen America's energy security.

In this document:

1.America's dependence on oil undermines its national security interests.

2.The American economy is dependent on oil, making it vulnerable to high prices.

3.America's oil supply is not secure - vulnerable to natural disasters and terroristattacks.

's energy policies have continued America's reliance on fossil fuels, worsening global warming.

25


26/64


AMERICA'S DEPENDENCE ON OIL UNDERMINES ITS NATIONAL

SECURITY INTERESTS


Dependence on Foreign Oil Compromises U.S. National Security. "Since 2001,America's dependency on foreign oil has steadily increased even as the cost of oil hasmore than doubled.[America is] compromising its foreign policy objectives by funding unstable or hostile regimes in oilrich regions that threaten its national security." [Center for American Progress, Energy Security in the 21st Century, 7/2006]

U.S. Oil Dependence Finances Terror. American oil dependence enriches countriessuch as Saudi Arabia which harbor charities, nongovernmental organizations,

mosques, and banks that have funded terrorist groups around the world. Former CIAdirector James Woolsey described the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabism and Islamistextremism as "the soil in which Al-Qaeda and its sister terrorist organizations areflourishing." [Institute for the Analysis of Global Security]

Dependence on Global Oil Supply Limits Strategic Options. "All consumingcountries, including the United States, are more constrained in dealing withproducing states when oil markets are tight. To cite one current example, concern about losingIran's 2.5 million barrels per day of world oil exports will cause importing states tobe reluctant to take action against Iran's nuclear program." [Council on Foreign Relations, NationalSecurity Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency, 10/12/06]

Hostile Nations Are Enriched by Flood of Oil Revenue from Sales to America. "Thecontrol over enormous oil revenues gives exporting countries the flexibility to adopt policies that oppose U.S. interests and

values. Iran proceeds with a program that appears to be headed toward acquiring anuclear weapons capability. Russia is able to ignore Western attitudes as it hasmoved to authoritarian policies in part because huge revenues from oil and gasexports are available to finance that style of government. Venezuela has theresources from its oil exports to invite realignment in Latin American politicalrelationships and to fund changes such as Argentina's exit from its InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF) standby agreement and Bolivia's recent decision to nationalizeits oil and gas resources. Because of their oil wealth, these and other producercountries are free to ignore U.S. policies and to pursue interests inimical to our

national security." [National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency, 10/12/06]Revenue from Oil Sales toAmerica Has Been Used to Undermine Local Governance and Promote Instability. "Revenues from oil and gas exports canundermine local governance. The United States has an interest in promoting good governance both for its own sake and

because it encourages investment that can increase the level and security of supply. States that are politically unstable andpoorly governed often struggle with the task of responsibly managing the large revenues that come from their oil and gasexports. The elements of good governance include democratic accountability, low corruption, and fiscal transparency.

Production in fragile democracies, such as in Nigeria, can be undermined whenpoliticians or local warlords focus on ways to seize oil and gas rents rather than onthe longer-term task of governance. Totalitarian governments that have control over

26


27/64


those revenue flows can entrench their rule." [National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency,10/12/06]

27


28/64


Impact Extensions

ImpactsOil Exports Three-Fourths of the Venezuelan Economy.Advameg. 2007(http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Venezuela-ECONOMY.html)

During the colonial era and until the development of petroleum resources, the export of coffee and cocoa and the raisingof cattle and goats provided the main supports for the economy. However, agriculture now accounts for only about 5% of

the GDP. For over 40 years the economy has been completely dominated by thepetroleum industry; in the mid-1980s, oil exports accounted for 90% of all exportvalue, and in 2002 petroleum accounted for over one-third of the GDP, three-fourths of export revenues and half of government revenues. The Venezuelaneconomy is therefore greatly influenced by petroleum market conditions andVenezuela through its membership in OPEC has exercised influence on the rest of the world. TheVenezuelan oil minister is reputed to be one of the principle architects of the first oil shock in 1973, and in 1999,Venezuela's decision to cut production to halt the continuing slide in oil prices led the way to their recovery in 2000 andafter. The second most important mineral product is iron, and Venezuela's mineral wealth is augmented by frequentdiscoveries of additional reserves. Industrial development is fostered by government policy.

28


29/64


Oils importance to Venezuela

Stephen J. Kay and Myriam Quispe-Agnoli02(Atlanta Feds Latin America Research Grou,http://www.frbatlanta.org/invoke.cfm?objectid=1B0BDCE0-904D-43E4-BF7E42DC3F12D06F&method=display )

Latin Americas oil economy and volatile oil prices have varyingimpacts on the regions economies. High oil prices help large producerslike Venezuela and Ecuador that rely on exports for fiscal revenue andforeign exchange. For the net oil-importing countries of Brazil, Peru and Chile, the price of oil is akey determinant of inflation, the cost of production, the trade balance and the strength of the currency.Oil prices today are extremely volatile, and sharp fluctuations in oil prices contribute to macroeconomicvolatility in the region. Over the past 20 years, oil prices have been more volatile than the prices of othercommodities like raw agricultural products, ores and metals. The impact of this volatility varies accordingto a countrys relative dependence on oil production and exports.

Using Nonrenewable Resources Causes our Civilization to Collapse

Heinburg in 2004 (Richard, publisher the Museletter and teaches at New College inSanta Rosa, California, US Conference on Peak Oil: November 12-14, 2004)Societies become complex in order to solve their problems. We adopted agriculture tomake up for the caloric deficit consequent upon our overhunting of megafauna during thelate Pleistocene. We irrigated so that we could practice agriculture in seasonally aridplaces. We built social hierarchies to allocate irrigation allowances from a single river tohundreds or thousands of individual farmers, or to store and distribute grain fromseasonally abundant harvests. At first, such investments in social and technologicalcomplexity may yield dizzying returns, and societies that make them often grow quickly

and tend to overpower their neighbors. An empire may develop, and may persist forcenturies or even millennia. But the strategy of social complexification imposes hiddencosts that gradually build up. The support population eventually tires under the burden.Once the point of declining returns is reached, almost anything can push a society intodecline. Climate change and other environmental disasters sometimes play a role.Typically, civilizations that are near their point of collapse become involved in wars overresources, and they are often plagued by poor leadership that is unable to understand thenature of the challenge or to propose effective responses.Does any of this sound familiar? Surely a civilization whose entire basis rests upon theextraction and useand thus the depletionof a few nonrenewable resources is the mostvulnerable sort of civilization that has ever existed.

29
http://www.frbatlanta.org/invoke.cfm?objectid=1B0BDCE0-904D-43E4-BF7E42DC3F12D06F&method=displayhttp://www.frbatlanta.org/invoke.cfm?objectid=1B0BDCE0-904D-43E4-BF7E42DC3F12D06F&method=display


30/64


Impact : Collapse is Inevitable if a Society uses Resources

UnsustainablyHeinberg in 2007 ( Richard, MuseLetter #178, Five Axioms of Sustainability, Feburary2007)1. (Tainters Axiom): Any society that continues to use critical resources unsustainably willcollapse. Exception: A society can avoid collapse by finding replacement resources. Limit tothe exception: In a finite world, the number of possible replacements is also finite.Discussion: I have named this axiom for Joseph Tainter, author of the classic study, TheCollapse of Complex Societies, which demonstrates that collapse is a frequent if notuniversal fate of complex societies, and argues that collapse is directly related todeclining returns on efforts to support growing levels of societal complexity with energyharvested from the environment. Jared Diamonds book Collapse: How Societies Choose

to Fail or Succeed similarly makes the argument that collapse is the common destiny ofsocieties that ignore resource constraints. This axiom defines sustainability by theconsequences of its absence, i.e., collapse. Tainter defines collapse as a reduction insocial complexityi.e., a contraction of society in terms of its population size, thesophistication of its technologies, the consumption rates of its people, and the diversity ofits specialized social roles. Often, historically, collapse has meant a precipitous decline inpopulation brought about by social chaos, warfare, disease, or famine. However, collapse canalso occur more gradually over a period of many decades or even several centuries. There is alsothe theoretical possibility that a society could choose to collapse (i.e., reduce itscomplexity) in a controlled as well as gradual manner. While it could be argued that asociety can choose to change rather than collapse, the only choices that would substantively affect

the outcome would be either to cease using critical resources unsustainably or to find alternativeresources. A society that uses resources sustainably may collapse for other reasons, some beyondthe societys control (as a result of an overwhelming natural disaster, or of conquest byanother, more militarily formidable and aggressive society, to name just two of manypossibilities), so it cannot be said that a sustainable society is immune to collapse unless manymore conditions for sustainability are specified. This first axiom focuses on resourceconsumption because that is a decisive, quantifiable, and, in principle, controllabledeterminant of a societys long-term survival. The question of what constitutessustainable or unsustainable use of resources is addressed in axioms 3 and 4. Criticalresources areones essential to the maintenance of life and basic social functionsincluding (but not necessarily limited to) water and the resources necessary to produce

food and usable energy. The Exception and Limit to the Exception address the commonargument of free-market economists that resources are infinitely substitutable, and thattherefore modern market-driven societies need never face a depletion-led collapse, evenif their consumption rates continue to escalate. In some instances, substitutes forresources become readily available and are even superior, as was the case in the mid-19thcentury when kerosene from petroleum was substituted for whale oil as a fuel for lamps.In other cases, substitutes are inferior (as is the case with tar sands as a substitute forconventional petroleum, given that tar sands are less energy-dense, require more energy

30


31/64


input for processing, and produce more carbon emissions). As time goes on, societies willtend first to exhaust substitutes that are superior and easy to get at, then those that areequivalent, and increasingly will have to rely on ever more inferior substitutes to replace

depleting resourcesunless rates of consumption are held in check (see Axioms 24).

31


32/64


A Middle East Cutoff of Oil Would Be Suicidal

Francis in 2006 (David R., Why Iran oil cutoff could be suicidal, March 27, 2006)For Iran, the use of its own oil as a bargaining chip has limited value. Iran gets 90 percent of itsgovernment revenues from oil. Its exports of about 2.5 million b.p.d. amount to 80 percent of itstotal exports. Oil provides some 40 percent of Iran's gross domestic product. Yet Iran is the onlymajor producer of oil to suffer from a budget deficit. The Iranian public, notes Alhajji, isheavily dependent on government subsidies for staple goods and fuels. From 1980 to 2005,Iran's population grew by 22.4 million and now stands at 68 million. Its daily oil output duringthat period rose by only 600,000 barrels. So a cut in oil exports by Iran would be risky at home."If they are willing to commit suicide, they could do it," says Alhajji. The blow to the US wouldnot be so severe. Hurricane Katrina shut off 1.5 million b.p.d. from the Gulf of Mexico, but oilprices rose only $10 a barrel. Any Iranian embargo could be countered by more exports fromother OPEC nations and tapping the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Alhajji says an Iranian

embargo might raise crude prices initially by $20 a barrel before they fell back toward $60. Theresult would be an energy crisis in Iran, which depends substantially on imported gasoline fromEurope, but not a worldwide threat, predicts Alhajji. Last week the American PetroleumInstitute said US commercial crude oil reserves in February were the highest since May 1999.That sounds reassuring. But Alhajji notes those record oil reserves would cover only three daysof imports.

Arab oil Provides better future

Paulson 08 (june 2) States news service

Surging oil revenues have led to a massive accumulation of capital in the Gulf ofarab in a very short time. To put this in context, GCC countries will provide about 18percent of global capital exports in 2008 -- more than double their share just fiveyears ago.

The upside of this oil wealth is that the Gulf countries have an historic opportunity toshore up their economic fundamentals, diversify their economies and make neededinvestments in human capital -- steps that should help avoid the boom and bustcycles of the past and support broad based growth. Many of the region's leaders areembracing this opportunity by paying down debt, setting aside wealth for futuregenerations, increasing health and education spending, and improving the

environment for foreign and domestic private investment.

32
http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=C4E1F6E9E4A0D2AEA0C6F2E1EEE3E9F3&url=/2006/0327/p17s01-cogn.htmlhttp://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=C4E1F6E9E4A0D2AEA0C6F2E1EEE3E9F3&url=/2006/0327/p17s01-cogn.html


33/64


Chinese dependency means they support oppressiveregimes, causing conflict with the USChietigjBajpaee10 March 2006 (Power and Interest News Reports)For example, the visit by Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz to China in January was the first by a Saudi monarch to China. This visit demonstratedthe deepening relationship between the world's fastest growing source of oil demand (China) and the world's biggest oil supplier (Saudi Arabia). Since

2002, Saudi oil shipments to the U.S. have been declining while shipments have beenincreasing to China. Indeed, last year Saudi Arabia was China's leading source of oil imports.China has secured numerous energy exploration agreements with the Saudi government. For example, Sinopec has won the right to explore fornatural gas in Saudi Arabia's al-Khali Basin, while Saudi Arabia has agreed to assist China in the development of its strategic petroleum reserves andto upgrade China's downstream refinery capacity as demonstrated by the construction of a refinery for natural gas in Fujian Province.

Sino-Saudi relations extend beyond the energy sphere. Both countries maintain close relations with Pakistan, and China has sold Saudi Arabia CSS-2"East Wind" intermediate range ballistic missiles. Saudi Arabia has also emerged as China's leading trade partner in the region with Sino-Saudi tradeamounting to US$14bn in 2005.

A similar deepening of relations can be seen in the case of Sino-Iranian relations. While China abstained in the vote to refer Iran's nuclearambitions to the United Nations Security Council at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) in January 2006, it still

maintains strong relations with Iran. When the Iran issue will be discussed at the U.N. Security Council, China could employ asimilar tactic to what it employed over the issue of Sudan, which is also a significant oil supplier to China; in 2004, the U.N. Security

Council was forced to water down a resolution condemning atrocities in the Darfur regionto avoid a Chinese veto.China's relations with Iran, while rooted in centuries of history from the "Silk Road" and the voyages of Zheng He, have recently blossomed as a resultof China's growing energy needs. China has signed a US$100bn deal with Iran to import 10 million tons of liquefied natural gas over a 25-year periodin exchange for a Chinese stake of 50 percent in the development of the Yadavaran oil field in Iran. China has also expressed a desire in directpipeline access to Iran via Kazakhstan.Relations in the economic sphere have also continued to blossom as bilateral trade reached US$9.5bn in 2005, fueled by growing Chinese investmentin Iran's infrastructure. Iran has also been drawn into China's sphere of influence by its observer status at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.Given the ongoing frictions between Iran and the West, Sino-Iranian relations are also a source of potential friction for Sino-U.S. relations. Forexample, while China has voiced its commitment to the non-proliferation regime, Chinese companies have been the subject of numerous sanctions forthe transfer of ballistic missile technologies to Iran. Since the mid-1980s, China has sold Iran anti-ship cruise missiles such as the Silkworm (HY-2),the C-801, and the C-802.While gaining access to the region's vast energy resources is China's primary motivation for deepening relations with the region, there are a numberof other factors driving China's Middle East policy. Since the Middle East is the ideological center of the Islamic world, China has attempted tomaintain good relations with the Arab world in order to get their support on the Uighur insurgency in Xinjiang Province and maintain amicable relationswith the 55 million Muslims residing in China.While China's main efforts in preventing external actors from fueling the Uighur insurgency have focused on Central and South Asian states, countriesin the Middle East, most notably Saudi Arabia and Iran, have also had an important role to play in quelling the insurgency given their moral andmaterial support. Most notably, Wahabbi Islam, which is an export from Saudi Arabia, has played a significant role in the rise of extremist,fundamentalist Islam in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Central Asian republics on China's western borders.

In order to garner the goodwill of the region, Beijing has made numerous symbolic gestures. For example, in September 2002 Beijing appointed itsfirst Middle East peace envoy. While this has had little significance for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, it has, nevertheless, demonstratedChina's increasing attention to the region.Similarly, while China has maintained a low-profile in the U.S. intervention in Iraq, in May 2004 China submitted a document to the U.N. SecurityCouncil proposing that U.S.-led forces withdraw from Iraq. China has also consistently called for a larger U.N. role in Iraq. China is deepening itseconomic cooperation with the region through the China-Arab Cooperation Forum and the Framework Agreement between China and the GulfCooperation Council, which includes negotiations for a free trade zone.While China has maintained a historically close relationship with the Arab world, including sympathizing with the Palestinian cause, it has neverthelessalso pursued an increasingly close relationship with Israel in recent years. Israel is one of only a handful of countries that has never granted diplomaticrecognition to Taiwan. In recent years, Sino-Israeli relations have been fueled by China's growing dependence on Israel for arms imports andupgrades, particularly hard-to-find U.S.-made weapons platforms. Israel is now China's second largest supplier of weaponry after Russia. Mostnotably, Israel has sold China "Harpy" anti-radar drones and Python-3 air-to-air missiles.Nevertheless, there are limits to Sino-Israeli relations given the close relationship between Israel and the United States as evinced by Israel's decision(under U.S. pressure) to cancel the sale of the Phalcon airborne early-warning radar system to China in July 2000 and its decision not to upgradeharpy drones for China in 2004. [See: "Return of the Red Card: Israel-China-U.S. Triangle"]Potential for China-U.S. Rivalry

While China and the United States are not engaged in an overt competition in the Middle East, it is not difficult to envision that the regioncould emerge as the stage for future Sino-U.S. rivalry. Not only are the United States and China dependent onenergy resources from the Middle East, but both states offer competing models for international conduct,with the Chinese model becoming increasingly popular in the region.

While the United States has become more willing to engage in humanitarian intervention,preemptive action and regime change, with the Middle East emerging as the most likelycandidate for the U.S. to practice these policies, China retains a preference for a traditionalWestphalian-style of conducting international relations with emphasis on non-intervention, state sovereignty andterritorial integrity.

33


34/64


Impact : A Middle East oil embargo would be ineffective,and hurt the producer more than the consumer.Dependency ensures global influenceShikhaDalmiaMay 5, 2006 (Senior Analyst with Reason Foundation, http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060505.shtml)As the nuclear stand-off with Iran helped push oil prices to near-record levels, President Bush once again declared, "Dependency on oil creates aneconomic problem for us, and it creates a national security problem for us."

But if Iran's behavior makes the case for anything at all, it is that America should becomemore not less "dependent"on foreign oil. In fact, the best way for America to defuse the so-called Middle Eastern oil weapon is by purchasing even more oil from theregion.

The economic case for energy independence has always been nonsensical. It is not possible to shield American consumersfrom rising prices at the pump simply by replacing foreign oil with domestic oil. Why? Because regardless of where the oilis produced Oman or Oklahoma its prices are set by the global market.The global demand for oil and its ease of transportation have synchronized oil prices everywhere. Therefore, unless compelled by draconiangovernment mandates, no American company that can command $3 a gallon in Oman would sell it for much less in Oklahoma. If war prevents MiddleEastern oil from reaching its global customers, the incentive for American companies to sell U.S. oil overseas would be even greater given the higherprices that it would fetch. War or peace, no amount of domestic production will give us "independence" from the law of supply and demand.But if domestic production won't ensure access to cheap oil, some believe that it will at least shield us from the k ind of geo-political manipulation that

Arab countries attempted during the 1973 oil embargo. That, however, is also a myth.For starters, OPEC -- the Arab-dominated cartel of oil producing nations did not succeed in its manipulation even then. Itlifted the embargo in less than two months, once it became clear that while its members were giving up oil revenues, itsoil was still reaching the United States because of diverted shipments from Europe. Therewas some diminution of oil supply in the United States, but not nearly enough to do any serious damage to the Americaneconomy.The long lines outside gas stations that Americans associate with the embargo resulted more from panic buying and domestic oil price controls ratherthan lost Arab oil, notes M.A. Adelman, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

But if all OPEC countries together couldn't pull off their political blackmail, a rogue regimeacting alone will surely not succeed.Saudi Arabia's experience in 1980 demonstrates why. The country elected to play the role of OPEC's "swing producer," unilaterally limiting its oilproduction in order to boost world oil prices. It expected that higher oil prices would compensate it for lower oil sales.But Saudi Arabia was forced to abandon its policy in a few years as other OPEC members bumped up their production on the sly and pushed itsexports to nearly zero. Since then, Saudi Arabia has repeatedly said that it would never again unilaterally cut output.

The lesson of Saudi Arabia's experience oil sales that one producer foregoes will quickly be captured by

others is not lost even on regimes such as Iran, especially now when there are more oil suppliers than ever before.Given Iran's defiant mood and tension with the U.S. and Europe over its nuclear program, one would have thought that this would be a perfectmoment for its hot-headed president to further escalate if not act on his threat to cut off Iran's oil exports to the West and shut down oil shipmentsthrough the Straits of Hormuz.

But beneath all ofIran's saber-rattling and its threat to retaliate against Israel in the event of a U.S. attack, it realizes how suicidalsuch a move would be. During a recent OPEC meeting, Karem Vaziri Hamaneh, Iran's oil minister, went out of his way to reassure theworld that Iran had no intention of disrupting the oil market. "The need of the world for energy is soaring and, if Iran is taken out of the equation, priceswill shoot up," he told the Wall Street Journal. "But we don't want to cause hardship for any consumers around the world."Vaziri's concern is not so much for the world's oil consumers, of course, as for the economic consequences for his own country. The Iraniangovernment depends on oil exports for nearly half of its total revenues. If it cuts these exports, buyers could go to other suppliers. But there is notmuch else that Iran could sell to other countries to replace its lost oil revenues.Our dependence on Middle Eastern oil is only the flip side of their dependence on our purchases. But given the narrow base of Middle Eastern

economies, the power in the relationship is firmly on the side of the oil buyers. If thatrelationship were to end because of "energy independence," we would give up crucialleverage to control the worst behavior of some of the world's worst regimes. Of course, thisleverage is no magic wand that would protect us from a totally irrational regime willing to absorb the economic cost of using the oil weapon. But themore oil we get from such a regime, the higher the price it would have to pay.

34


35/64


Aff Answers

Non Unique:Addiction going down

The Frontrunner May 20, 2008 TuesdayBush Signs Bill Suspending Oil Reserve Additions

On its front page, the Financial Times (5/20, Hoyos) reports, "The US is starting tobreak its 'addiction' to foreign oil as high prices, more efficient cars, and the use ofethanol significantly cut the share of its oil imports for the first time since 1977. Thecountry's foreign oil dependency is expected to fall from 60 per cent to 50 per cent in2015, before rising again slightly to 54 per cent in 2030, according to the head of theDepartment of Energy's statistical arm." US net imports "are expected to fall

between now and 2030, ending what has been an almost relentless 30-year climb inthe use of foreign oil and a fall in domestic production. In 2006, George W. Bushsaid in his State of the Union speech that America was 'addicted to oil' ? oftenimported from unstable parts of the world ? and said he would work to address theissue. ... The US decline in foreign oil dependency is already becoming more visible,with imports making up 57.9 per cent in the first three months of this year, downfrom 58.2 last year."

Turn: Oil dependency leads to mercy of terrorists

Business Wire, March 5, 2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference2008, Remarks by the President to the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference 2008

The dependency upon oil also puts us at the mercy of terrorists. If there's tight supply anddemand, all it requires is one terrorist disruption of oil and thatprice goes even higher.It's inour interests to end our dependency on oil because it -- that dependencypresents a challengeto our national security. In 1985, 20 percent of Americ

Oil DA FILE

Documents

Transcript of Oil DA FILE