ANWR Neg Brief (Brem FN & Salem EE)

Harms Reponses:
Trade Deficit
Solvency:
1) ANWR Would Have Minimal Effect On Imports
2) Companies Don’t Want to Drill
3) Drilling Takes Forever to Set Up (No Good for “In Case of Emergency”)
4) OPEC Will Undercut ANWR
5) 1/4 ANWR Not Under USFG Jurisdiction
6) Emperical e.g. of Uselessness: Giant North Slope No Effect
Specific Advantage Responses:
1) Reduced Dependence
2) Create Jobs
3) Less Oil From Countries that Hate Us
Disadvantages
1) Smog and Acid Rain
2) Greenhouse Gases
3) Wasted Land
4) Higher Gas Prices
5) Increased Possibility of Oil Spill

Harms Responses:
(Responses to generic harms omitted.)
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Trade Deficit TC \l1 "
1) Oil-Based Deficit vs. Total Deficit
Deficit Based On Oil TC \l2 "

Total US Trade Deficit TC \l2 "

Associated Press, January 12, 2005, “US Trade Deficit Soars To All-Time High” TC \l3 "
“The trade deficit through November totaled $561.3 billion, far above the previous annual
record of $496.5 billion set in 2003, and put the country on track to record a trade imbalance
topping $600 billion when the December figures are added.”

2) Trade Deficit Effect On Economy

Free Markets Don’t Depend On Lines of Map|US Ran Deficit During Most Rapid
Progress
“'Buy American' is UN-American,” by Dr. Harry Binswanger, (September 5, 2003)
“Free trade does not destroy but creates employment.
The… workings of free markets do not depend upon lines drawn on a map. The economic
advantages of international commerce are the same as those of interstate, intercity, and
crosstown commerce…. Fact confirms theory: the U.S. ran a trade "deficit" practically every
year of the nineteenth century, the time of our most rapid economic progress.”
 “Trade Deficit” Is a Myth
"New Voodoo Economics", from The American Spectator, by Brian S. Wesbury (The American
Spectator's economics editor and chief economist at Grifin, Kubik, Stephen & Thompson, Inc.,
a Chicago-based investment bank)
"...And many seem to forget that the stock market collapsed in 2000 and the recession began
early in 2001, despite a federal budget surplus and rising net national savings. If surpluses truly
are the Holy Grail, why did the economy have so many problems?
...Truth be told, all of this talk of doom [regarding the trade deficit] is just a way to get the
government more involved in managing the economy, taking away freedom from individuals.
...Trade deficits are the result of millions of individual decisions made by consumers and
businesses. Unless you own a grocery store, every reader of this magazine runs a trade deficit
with the local food purveyor. Chicago runs a trade deficit with the rest of Illinois. Consumers
buy goods made in China because they cost less. Trade increases our standard of living. There is
nothing wrong with buying goods that you, your city, or your country do not produce."

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ANWR Solvency

1) ANWR Would Have Minimal Effect On Imports
2) Companies Don’t Want to Drill
3) Drilling Takes Forever to Set Up (No Good for “In Case of Emergency”)
4) OPEC Will Undercut ANWR
5) 1/4 ANWR Not Under USFG Jurisdiction
6) Emperical e.g. of Uselessness: Giant North Slope No Effect

1) ANWR Would Have Minimal Effect On Imports

Drilling in ANWR will not significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil
Statement of Robert Dewey,
Vice President of Government Relations Defenders of Wildlife
May 2004 TC \l1 "
"A recent Energy Information Administration study, requested by drilling proponents, indicates
that even if the Arctic Refuge were opened to drilling today, our nation would still be importing
more than 60 percent of our oil, only 3 percent less than if the Refuge remained protected. The
same EIA study states that OPEC would likely countermand any potential price impact of oil
from the Arctic Refuge by reducing its exports an equal amount."

ANWR would only hold a 6-month supply in oil.

Lara Jill Rosenblith, Environmental Issues, about.com
http://environment.about.com/od/election2004/i/ANWR_Oil.htm
October 20, 2004
“The U.S. Geological Study (USGS) concluded that, given America's current rate of
consumption, ANWR would in all likelihood hold a 180-day (6-month) supply of oil.”

Not enough oil in anwr

Statement of Robert Dewey,
Vice President of Government Relations Defenders of Wildlife
May 2004
 "Moreover, the US Geological Survey has determined that the Arctic Refuge would produce
only six months worth of oil, which oil executives themselves admit wouldn't even reach
market for another ten years."

2) Companies Don’t Want to Drill

If Exploratory Drill Had Been Promising, Companies Would be Lobbying Strongly
“Big Oil Steps Aside in Battle Over Arctic,” Jeff Gerth, New York Times, February 21, 2005
"Ken Bird, a geological survey official who worked on the [1998 USGS] study, said the federal
geologists did not have access to test data from the only exploratory well drilled on the refuge,
by Chevron Texaco and BP in the 1980's. An official with one of the companies, speaking
anonymously because of the confidentiality of the test, said that if the results had been
encouraging the company would be more engaged in the political effort to open the refuge."

Oil Company Drops Lobby

Conoco pulls out of group pushing for ANWR drilling; Mary Pemberton, Associated Press
January 10, 2005: http://www.lcv.org/News/News.cfm?ID=3574&c=27
“The largest oil company operating on Alaska's North Slope has dropped out of the lobbying
group Arctic Power, whose sole purpose is to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to
drilling. Houston-based ConocoPhillips dropped its membership in Arctic Power in 2004,
spokeswoman Dawn Patience said Wednesday.”

Oil Companies Drop Lobbying & Exploratory Acreage

Petroleum News; Greens claim credit for Conoco’s withdrawal from Arctic Power, Kay
Cashman; Janyary 9th 2005 Petroleum News Publisher & Managing Editor;
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/590912188.shtml
“BP [British petroleum] dropped out of Arctic Power in 2002. Although BP has sold or dropped
all of its exploration acreage in Alaska and is concentrating on producing more oil from its
existing North Slope oil fields…ConocoPhillips [also] dropped out of the Anchorage-based pro-
ANWR drilling advocacy group…”

Oil Companies “Uninterested”

“Big Oil Steps Aside in Battle Over Arctic,” Jeff Gerth, New York Times, February 21, 2005

"Once allied, the administration and the oil industry are now far apart on the issue [of proposed
drilling for oil in a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska]. The major oil
companies are largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical about the potential there.
Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a
tiny fraction of America's needs."

Government More Excited About ANWR Than Oil Industry Is

“Big Oil Steps Aside in Battle Over Arctic,” Jeff Gerth, New York Times, February 21, 2005
"The enthusiasm of government officials about ANWR exceeds that of industry because oil
companies are driven by market forces, investing resources in direct proportion to the economic
potential, and the evidence so far about ANWR is not promising," [Wayne Kelley, who worked
in Alaska as a petroleum engineer for Halliburton, the oil services corporation, and is now
managing director of RSK, an oil consulting company] said.

3) Drilling Takes Forever to Set Up

 ANWR Infrastructure Would Take 7-12 Years
“Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:
Updated Assessment,” May 2000, Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas,
U.S. Department of Energy
“Seven to 12 years are estimated to be required from an approval to explore and develop to first
production from the ANWR Area.”

Norwegians Excited About 3 Year Delay

Report: “The development on the Norwegian continental shelf from 1966 to 1998,” June 1999,
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
“Figure 2.17 illustrates the long period that has elapsed for some fields from the date when
approval was given for their development, to the start of production. Several of the most recent
developments, however, have entered production in less than three years after approval.”

4) OPEC will undercut ANWR

OPEC Would Lower Production To Shore Up Prices
Oil Daily, Philip Verleger; July 26, 2001, Philip Verleger: an economist and oil analyst
"Finally, WEFA [Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates] ignored the very real possibility
that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could lower its production in
response to a new U.S. supply from the Arctic Refuge. In fact, such a scenario played out this
summer when Iraq re-entered the world oil market. OPEC responded by cutting production by 1
million barrels per day to shore up world prices. "It would be child's play for the OPEC
countries to neutralize any impact of oil from the Arctic Refuge on world oil prices..."

5) 1/4 ANWR Not Under USFG Jurisdiction

26% Reserves State & Native Land
“Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:
Updated Assessment,” May 2000, Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas,
U.S. Department of Energy
“The USGS results for the entire area are shown in Table 1, which lists the technically
recoverable oil and initial oil in place for the ANWR 1002 Federal lands and for the entire
Coastal Plain, including State and Native lands. The leasing of State and Native lands does not
require Congressional action, but development is expected only if the Federal lands are
available for utilization. That is why they are included in the analysis. About 26 percent of the
technically recoverable resources are in the Native and State lands.”

6) Giant North Slope No Effect

NPR-A = 5x ANWR
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 8/19/2000, “Policy Statement:
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska”
“North Slope of Alaska currently supplies approximately 1.5 million barrels a day, 25 percent of
the nation’s daily production. Almost 70 billion barrels of oil-in-place exists just east of the
NPR-A boundary in Prudhoe-Kuparuk area. This productive area is approximately the same
size as the northern one-third of NPR-A.”

ANWR = 5.7-16 Billion Barrels

“Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:
 Updated Assessment,” May 2000, Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas,
U.S. Department of Energy
The range of potential is from 5.7 to 16.0 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil (the 95
percent to 5 percent probability range).

The Arctic is already open to drilling

Lara Jill Rosenblith, Environmental Issues, about.com
http://environment.about.com/od/election2004/i/ANWR_Oil.htm
October 20, 2004
“95 percent of the Arctic coastline is already open to oil drilling and exploration.”

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 AT: ANWR Advantages

1) Reduced Dependence
2) Create Jobs
3) Less Oil From Countries that Hate Us

1) AT Reduced Dependence
If ANWR opened, Heavy Dependence on Foreign Oil Would Continue, EIA finds
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/ Study: ANWR oil would have little impact
The Associated Press Updated: 8:45 p.m. ET March 16, 2004
"Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America's
dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an
analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.
The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-
ahead to pump oil from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by
2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.
But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-
thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge's oil remained off the market."

2) AT Jobs:
a. 1 Million Vastly Insignificant
Constant Churning in Job Market
Reason Magazine, July 2004,“10 Truth About Trade: Hard facts about offshoring, imports, and jobs,”
Brink Lindsey, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and director of its Center for Trade Policy Studies
“Large numbers of jobs are being shed constantly, even in good times. Total employment continues to
increase only because even larger numbers of jobs are being created....In other words, when the
unemployment rate holds steady–that is, total employment grows fast enough to absorb the ongoing
increase in the labor force–some 18.7 million people will lose their jobs and file unemployment
insurance claims during the course of a single year. Meanwhile, even more people will get new jobs.”

In 9 Years, 310mil Jobs Were Lost, 330mil Created

Reason Magazine, July 2004,“10 Truth About Trade: Hard facts about offshoring, imports, and jobs,”
Brink Lindsey, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and director of its Center for Trade Policy Studies
“According to data compiled by the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, total private-
sector employment rose by 17.8 million between 1992 and 2002. To produce that healthy net increase,
a breathtaking total of 327.7 million jobs were added, while 309.9 million jobs were lost.”
b. “Job Creation” Myth
February 18, 2003, “Jobs Creation and Government Policy,” Jerry L. Jordan [president and chief
executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland]
“Work is the necessary means of achieving wealth: in order to be consumers, we must also be
producers. Whatever good intentions are presumed, when the government focuses away from creating
wealth and onto creating jobs, it inevitably engenders a lower average standard of living. A successful,
wealth-augmenting government policy should simultaneously reduce the work burdens of the labor
force. That does not mean people will need to share jobs, take low-paying jobs, or become
unemployed. Wealth creation occurs as the "muscle" component of employment diminishes and the
"brainware" component increases.”

3) AT Less Oil From Evil Nations:

EIA: ANWR would peak at 876,000 bpd
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/ Study: ANWR oil would have little impact
The Associated Press Updated: 8:45 p.m. ET March 16, 2004
"The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the
go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by
2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025."

Projected US Imports in 2025=20 mb/d

“U.S. oil imports to rise 71% by 2025 as demand grows, U.S. says,”Boston Herald, December 9, 2004
“U.S. imports of crude oil, gasoline, jet fuel and other petroleum products will reach 19.3 million
barrels a day in 2025, up from 11.3 million at the end of 2003, the [US Department of Energy] said in
its Annual Energy Outlook.”

Current Imports from Saudi Arabia=1.5mb/d

url: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/saudi.html
Source: EIA Country Analysis brief
"During January-October 2004, Saudi Arabia supplied the United States with 1.5 million barrels per
day of crude oil, or 15%, of U.S. crude oil imports during that period."

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ANWR DAs

1) Smog and Acid Rain
2) Greenhouse Gases
3) Wasted Land
4) Higher Gas Prices
5) Increased Possibility of Oil Spill

1) Smog and Acid Rain

Link: Increased Drilling

Brink 1: Nearby Drilling Produces Nitrogen Oxide

National Resource Defense Council: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, The Impact of Oil
Development on the North Slope: March 2nd 2001
http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/anwr/anwr2.asp
 "Each year, oil operations on Alaska's North Slope emit more than 56,000 tons of nitrogen
oxides, which contribute to smog and acid rain. According to the Environmental Protection
Agency, this amount surpasses the emissions of Rhode Island or Vermont and is more than
twice the amount spewed by Washington, DC."

Brink 2: Nitrogen Oxides Cause Smog and Acid Rain

Impact 1: Hurt the Environment

According the to the EPA; six common air pollutants; nitrogen oxides, chief causes for concern,
January 6, 2005 http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/chf.html
“Nitrogen oxide is one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of ground-level ozone,
which can trigger serious respiratory problems. Nitrogen oxide contributes to formation of acid
rain. Nitrogen oxide contributes to nutrient overload that deteriorates water quality. Nitrogen
oxide reacts to form toxic chemicals. Nitrogen oxide contributes to global warming.”

Impact 2: Asthma
"Smog Alert: How to cope with bad air days;" Ontario Government; 05.99;
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/cons/3764e.htm
“Smog is made up of airborne pollutants, the most harmful of which are groundlevel ozone and
fine airborne particles. High levels of smog can cause coughing, wheezing and tightness of the
chest. Elderly people, children and people with heart and respiratory problems are particularly
vulnerable.”

2) Greenhouse Gases
Link: Increased Drilling in Alaska

Brink: Nearby Drilling Has Contributed to Global Warming

National Resource Defense Council: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, The Impact of Oil
Development on the North Slope: March 2nd 2001
http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/anwr/anwr2.asp
“It is also clear that North Slope oil facilities release greenhouse gases, which are a major
contributor to global climate change. Each year, they emit 2 to 11 metric tons of carbon dioxide
and some 24,000 to 114,000 metric tons of methane.”

Impact: Hurt Environment

Union of Concerned Scientists Global Environment Backgrounder; The Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge: Is loss of a pristine wilderness worth the oil that might be gained? October 30, 2002
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/archive/page.cfm?pageID=780
“[Current oil operations in Alaska's North Slope] and release up to 110,000 tons of methane, a
greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming... The Prudhoe Bay Complex also emits
11,400,000 metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere per year… This amount is equivalent to the
per capita emissions of approximately two million individuals in the United States.”

3) Wasted Land
Link: Increased Drilling

Brink: Oil Drilling Scars Land

 Beyond the Brooks Range What is at stake in Alaska concerns more than just Caribou Alaska;
Daniela Muhawi: 2004: Daniela Muhawi is an ecoworld environment correspondent
http://www.ecoworld.com/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=360
“They [the oil industry] have said it will only cover 2000 acres,” he says, “but the problem lies
in the fact that they are condensing. If you realistically measure the areas influenced by oil rigs,
it is really spread out. Think of it as a spider web: When the web is spread out, it covers a very
large area but when you ball it up it is only a fraction of its original size. They [the oil industry]
are giving you the number made up of all the rigs without counting the area in between-the
industry is giving you the balled up number. Roads and platforms, these things are all spread out
and cause fragmentation of habitat. It isn’t just one solid area of 2000 acres, it’s much more.”

Impact: Thousands of Acres Sacrificed for No Reason

Cato institute; April 17, 2002; ANWR: Sound and Fury Signifies Little; Jerry Taylor: April
17th, 2004
“The environmentalists are right that drilling in ANWR would not do much to bring down oil
prices. Industry's best estimate is that ANWR could produce about 1 million barrels of oil per
day at its peak. That's a 1.25 percent increase in global production.”

4) Higher Gas Prices

Link: Increased Domestic Drilling

Brink: Domestic Drilling More Expensive than Foreign Drilling

No Matter What, The Oil Will Flow, October 12, 2001, Jerry Taylor; Director of Natural
Resource Studies at Cato Institute
“... energy independence--even if achievable--would be harmful because higher prices would be
paid for energy than is necessary. After all, the U.S. imports Persian Gulf oil for a reason: It's
significantly less expensive than domestic petroleum or non-fossil fuel alternatives.”

Impact 1: Costs Get Passed On to the Consumer:

Impact 2: Severly Damage Economy

National Center for Policy analysis, Daily Policy Digest Energy Issues, Future Energy 2004;
HYPERLINK http://www.ncpa.org/newdpd/dpdarticle.php?
article_id=108http://www.ncpa.org/newdpd/dpdarticle.php?article_id=108
“The Department of Energy estimates that a rise of 10 percent in the price of oil cuts U.S. gross
domestic product (GDP) growth by roughly 0.1 percentage point. Based on that, the 38 percent
rise in oil prices over the past year has cost the economy roughly $46 billion in lost output.”

5) Increased Possibility of Oil Spill

Link: Increased Drilling

Brink 1: Oil Transportation Vulnerable to Spills

Alaska Wilderness League, "Not Another Valdez". http://notanothervaldez.org/
October 20, 2004
“On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez spilled 11,000,000 gallons of crude onto Alaska's shores.
Fifteen years later, the oil companies haven't made their industry any safer. Now they want to exploit
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska's last unspoiled frontier. They say they've changed their
act. But we couldn't trust them then ... Why should we trust them now?”
Brink 2: Can’t Trust Oil Companies To Prevent Spills
Drilling may lead to another massive oil spill, as there was 15 years ago (Exxon Valdez oil tanker)
Cindy Shogan, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League.
March 18, 2004 TC \l1 "
“If the oil industry messed up so bad 15 years ago, how can we trust that their new plan for Alaska -
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - would be any safer?
It is not worth sacrificing America's last frontier for about 6 months of oil that won't flow for another
10 years.”

Impact 1: Poor Animals

Dan McFadden, MSNBC, March 24, 1999
“The official death toll estimates 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 250 bald eagles,
and as many as 22 killer whales were killed by the spill. Oil washed up on 1,300 miles of shoreline and
drifted as far west as the the Aleutian Peninsula.”

Impact 2: Cost of Cleanup Hurt Economy

Dan McFadden, MSNBC, March 24, 1999
“The cleanup effort cost Exxon more than $2 billion over four years and at its peak involved 10,000
workers, some 1,000 ships, 100 aircraft and the assistance of numerous federal agencies.”