2014 ndi – Pre Camp Natural Gas Negative



Download 1.07 Mb.
Page8/19
Date01.02.2018
Size1.07 Mb.
#37897
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   19

Solvency

Takes too Long

Plan doesn’t solve till 2035 – regulatory hurdles block the flow of gas


Murawski, 2012 (John, News and Observer, “Opening Atlantic Ocean to offshore drilling likely” 10/2/2012 http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/10/02/2384560/opening-atlantic-ocean-to-offshore.html)

But even if the Atlantic Ocean is opened to energy companies, oil and gas production would likely not get underway for at least a decade. The energy exploration cycle is heavily regulated and requires seismic testing, environmental assessments, oceanographic mapping, military reviews and other regulatory hurdles before any oil and gas can start flowing. “There’s no way to speed this up,” said Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club’s lands protection program. The latest federal estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for the entire Atlantic coast is between 11 trillion cubic feet and 54 trillion cubic feet of natural gas – well below the 84.2 trillion cubic feet found in the Marcellus Shale that spans New York and Pennsylvania. The amount of oil is likely between 1.3 billion barrels and 5.58 billion barrels, less than a year’s supply. With the market price of gas hovering near all-time lows, the Energy Information Administration, a division within the U.S. Department of Energy, has estimated that no oil or gas will be produced in the Atlantic or outer continental shelf before 2035. Drilling offshore could begin 3 miles beyond the coast, the point at which federal waters begin, extending as far as 200 miles in the ocean. Each mile away from land increases the cost of pipelines, land-to-rig travel and drilling in ever-deeper waters. $66M to $400M a year Beyond the engineering and technical challenges, offshore drilling would mobilize state governments to press Congress to change federal law to allow states to collect royalties on the lease fees, as is done for Gulf Coast states. North Carolina could collect $66 million to $400 million a year for the life of the reserves, according to a 145-page report issued September 2011 by a scientific advisory panel created by Gov. Perdue. The revenue amount, at the top end, could approach 2 percent of the state’s $20.2 billion annual budget. “You could scatter that money around all over state government,” said Weatherspoon of the N.C. Petroleum Council. He said the money could bolster programs such as environmental regulation, mental health services, community colleges and others that have been hard-hit by budget cuts. Weatherspoon said that offshore exploration would pit neighboring states against each other to host shore bases that would supply and support the offshore rigs. Such bases could involve hundreds of jobs in metallurgy, food preparation, transportation and related work. A 2009 report from the Southeast Energy Alliance, an industry trade group, estimated that offshore drilling could create 6,700 new jobs in North Carolina. Bill Holman, director of the State Policy Program at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, said chances are slim that North Carolina could compete with larger ports in South Carolina and Virginia. Holman based his assessment on his tenure as a member of another offshore study panel, the Legislative Research Commission’s Advisory Subcommittee on Offshore Energy Exploration, which prepared a report in 2010. He said little research has been done on offshore resources, and noted that projected natural gas prices suggest that little will change in this regard in the near future.

Takes too long to get oil, is infeasible, and won’t be enough to affect prices


Horton, 2008 (Jennifer, howstuffworks, 8/11/2008 http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/offshore-drilling-controversy.htm)

With gas prices hitting record highs, people are looking high and low -- and offshore -- for a way to bring the costs down. But according to a study by the Energy Information Association (EIA), they may want to look elsewhere. Even if the outer continental shelf (OCS) were opened to drilling, the study found, it would be several years before the country saw any oil. Even then, the amount of oil probably wouldn't be enough to influence the global market [source: EIA]. The EIA gathered its data by preparing a test case to see what would happen if the current ban on offshore drilling was allowed to expire in 2012. Historically, the ban on drilling the OCS in the Pacific, Atlantic and most of the eastern Gulf of Mexico has been reinstated each time it expires, but the EIA wanted to see what might happen if it weren't. What the group determined contrasts sharply with the assertions coming from many politicians and oil executives about increased domestic supply bringing prices down. Instead, the EIA found that the increased drilling would have little impact before 2030. In fact, because of the technicalities involved in leasing wells, pinpointing where the oil is and actually getting that oil to the surface, production probably wouldn't even start until 2017. And according to the EIA study, even once the oil is flowing, the increased access would bring only 0.2 million barrels per day more than if the ban were still in place [source: EIA]. Despite the time lag, proponents of drilling say there's no time like the present. If the government hadn't banned offshore drilling back in 1982, they argue, much of that oil would already be on the world market. Some also argue that the simple act of legalizing offshore drilling might influence the market to lower prices. Even if the effects aren't immediate, they continue, drilling should begin now if Americans don't want to see their gas prices climb higher. Not to burst their oil bubble, but many economists counter that since oil prices are determined on a global market, a country has to make some serious additions for its actions to make any appreciable difference. To really affect prices, the United States would have to add significantly to the worldwide production of oil. Considering that the world produces 82.5 million barrels of oil each day, adding 0.2 million barrels isn't really going to have much of an impact [source: EIA].


Offshore drilling fails---takes a decade, states block it, the status quo does way more production than they can increase by


Plumer, 2012 (Brad Plumer “Romney would open federal lands to drilling. How much oil and gas is there?” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/25/romney-would-open-federal-lands-to-drilling-how-much-oil-and-gas-is-there/)

The three columns on the left show all of the undiscovered oil and gas that’s estimated to exist on federal lands and waters that are currently available for drilling. The middle four columns show oil and gas resources on lands that a Romney administration could open up fairly easily. And the two columns on the right show oil and gas resources that would have to be opened up by Congress. The basic takeaway here is that the vast majority of oil and gas on federal lands is already available for leasing, particularly in the waters off Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. There’s certainly room to open up further federal lands, but the additional resources appear to be fairly modest in comparison. For instance, opening up the rest of the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling would boost offshore oil and gas production in federal waters by just 3 percent in 2035. Now, CBO does list some caveats here. For one, these are just estimates of how much oil actually exists. “It is important to note,” the CBO adds, “that any projection that involves geologic resources is inherently uncertain.” Some of these areas may turn out to be too expensive or geologically difficult to produce. (Many of the Gulf of Mexico resources are in ultra-deep waters that remain technologically daunting.) Other areas may turn out to have larger resources than expected. But there are also political uncertainties. Even if a Romney administration opened up the Outer Continental Shelf, states such as California might not allow leasing regardless. What’s more, the CBO only looked at revenue for the next decade. But if, say, Congress opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for leasing next year (and that’s not likely), oil production wouldn’t ramp up for at least a decade. Between 2023-2035, drilling in ANWR might provide the federal government with an additional $2 billion to $4 billion per year in revenue, depending on how the royalties were split with Alaska. But this would still be less than one-sixth of the oil and gas revenue the government was getting from other federal lands. Now, as always, there are all sorts of other issues involved in opening up these lands and waters. Many politicians in Florida are opposed to opening up the Eastern Gulf of Mexico for drilling because of the risk that oil spills that could tarnish their valuable beaches. And environmentalists are against opening up ANWR because drilling could threaten the fragile ecosystem there. The CBO report doesn’t get into any of that. Mostly it just tries to offer a sense of how much oil and gas is actually in the areas being discussed.

States Block

States would block the aff


EIA, 2001(U.S. Natural Gas Markets: Mid-Term Prospects for Natural Gas Supply, Dec, http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/natgas/chapter2.html)

Even if the Federal moratoria were lifted and offshore leasing activity resumed in Federal waters, States and nongovernmental entities in opposition to offshore oil and gas development could use other legal means to preclude or at least limit the extent of Federal offshore oil and gas exploration and production. Although the States and local governments can not directly prohibit the physical development of offshore oil and gas resources in Federal waters, it would be possible to make their development considerably more expensive. A primary method for accomplishing this would be to preclude or limit the development of oil and gas infrastructure within the jurisdiction of the State and local governments by use of restrictive zoning. The oil and gas infrastructure necessary to develop Federal offshore energy resources include many elements, such as harbor facilities, onshore separation and treatment plants, oil refineries, and pipelines for transporting the crude oil and natural gas onshore. For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that local infrastructure issues and other potential non-Federal impediments would be overcome if Federal access restrictions were lifted, and that oil and gas development would proceed at rates similar to those seen in the early development of currently accessible areas.

Coastal Zone Management Act means the states can block energy projects and they definitely will. There is reverse preemption.


Schroeder 2010 (Erica, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. M.E.M., Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003, COMMENT: Turning Offshore Wind On 98 Calif. L. Rev. 1631)

The CZMA has had some measure of success - almost every coastal state participates and it has led states to view their Coastal Zones as "unified ecological areas." 230 Still, despite clear undertones of environmental protection, the Act has failed to serve as an effective tool to promote offshore wind power development, even at well-suited sites such as the location of the Cape Wind project. The CZMA's failure with respect to offshore wind can be attributed to lack of specificity in the terms of the Act. That is, without more [*1658] explicit guiding principles and requirements, states can fulfill the process required by the CZMA - the development of CZMPs - while not meeting any particular standards. 231 This leaves states with substantial discretion, but without a coherent, overarching goal driven by a federal plan. In particular, with its decentralized structure and only brief explicit mention of the national benefits of offshore energy development, the CZMA gives insufficient encouragement to states to recognize the benefits of offshore wind power in their CZMPs. 232 For example, the CZMA explicitly mandates that coastal states "anticipate and plan" for climate change and resulting sea level rise and other adverse effects. 233 However, it fails to specify the role for offshore wind energy or offshore renewable energy, even in a general manner, in such climate-change planning and in state CZMPs. Once the Secretary of Commerce has determined that a state has given "adequate consideration" to the "national interest" in its CZMP, the federal government no longer has control over energy facility development in state waters. 234 Thus coastal states can block proposed turbines in state waters and proposed transmission lines from offshore turbines proposed for federal waters. Or, as in the Cape Wind saga, most of which occurred before the Oceans Act was passed, states can simply not encourage, or even address, renewable energy production, giving proponents no mandate to rely on in litigation and administrative processes. In a more extreme situation, through federal consistency review, a coastal state retains a "reverse-preemption power" for federal projects and permits in state and federal waters, as long as these projects affect the state's coastal zone. 235 Therefore, as projects outside of a state's CZMP will frequently impact a state's coastal zone, states can also potentially block permitting and/or construction of turbines not only in their coastal zones, but also in federal waters outside of their CZMP's jurisdiction. Through these two mechanisms - state CZMPs and federal consistency review - local interests focused on local costs in coastal states can stall or block offshore wind power development, despite compelling national and global reasons to promote it. The CZMA offers no support to counteract this local opposition, such as a pro-offshore wind federal mandate. In addition, the federal government has offered only low levels of funding for renewable energy activity offshore. 236 When this factor is combined with the regulatory uncertainty resulting from so much discretion given to each individual state, it is not surprising that the CZMA has been an ineffective tool for promoting offshore wind power development.


Download 1.07 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   19



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
economic activities
general situation
national interests
gradual increase
overwhelming weight
russian embassy