Counterplans Inuit Consult cp



Download 0.65 Mb.
Page10/17
Date19.10.2016
Size0.65 Mb.
#3978
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   ...   17

Neg T Ocean Dev

1NC T Ocean Dev

Ocean “development” is utilization as a resource


Owen 3 – Daniel Owen, Consultant to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, “Legal And Institutional Aspects Of Management Arrangements For Shared Stocks With Reference To Small Pelagics In Northwest Africa”, FAO Fisheries Circular No. 988, http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4698b/y4698b04.htm
1.2 The legal regime for management of shared stocks

For a stock shared between two or more neighbouring coastal States and not ranging onto the high seas, the regime of Art 63(1) LOSC is appropriate. It states that:



Where the same stock or stocks of associated species occur within the exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal States, these States shall seek, either directly or through appropriate subregional or regional organizations, to agree upon the measures necessary to coordinate and ensure the conservation and development of such stocks without prejudice to the other provisions of this Part.

Regarding the term “development”, Nandan, Rosenne and Grandy[4] state that:

The reference to “development”... relates to the development of those stocks as fishery resources. This includes increased exploitation of little-used stocks, as well as improvements in the management of heavily-fished stocks for more effective exploitation. Combined with the requirement in article 61 of not endangering a given stock by overexploitation, this envisages a long-term strategy of maintaining the stock as a viable resource.

Violation---the plan doesn’t develop ocean resources

Voting issue---

Ground---resource-focus provides a stable and predictable direction for the topic and creates a balanced set of arguments for each side---depth of literature on oil, gas, and renewables is strong and creates high-quality debates

Limits---other interpretations make all ocean activity topical---explodes research burdens and makes preparation impossible




Neg T Ocean Exp

1NC Ocean Exploration

“Exploration” is discovery through observation and recording


NAS 00 – National Academy of Science Study, “Ocean Exploration”, http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/osb/miscellaneous/exploration_final.pdf
What Is Ocean Exploration?

As defined by the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000), ocean exploration is discovery through disciplined, diverse observations and recordings of findings. It includes rigorous, systematic observations and documentation of biological, chemical, physical, geological, and archeological aspects of the ocean in the three dimensions of space and in time.

Activity after discovery isn’t “exploration”


Hertzman 13 – Len Hertzman, Partner at Ashurst Australia, “Exploration Expenditure – No Bright Line Test”, 5-29, www.ashurst.com/doc.aspx?id_Content=9175
What is "exploration"?

One of the key issues in the proceedings concerned the meaning of the word "exploration" as used in section 37 of the Act.

While it is clear that "exploration" extends to activities involved in searching for and drilling exploration wells to discover petroleum reserves, prior to the Tribunal’s decision, it was not clear whether the word "exploration" extended beyond the immediate discovery of petroleum. For example, if a taxpayer drilled an exploration well and discovered petroleum, does expenditure incurred subsequent to that point in time cease to have the character of exploration expenditure (even though the extent and quality of the reserve may be unknown)?

Further, it was unclear whether the term "exploration" extended to circumstances where a taxpayer did not yet know whether an identified reserve was commercially or technically viable to allow for the development and later production of a petroleum project (ie where the reserve is not a proven reserve). If activities of this nature were in connection with "exploration" then the costs of assessing the commercial or the technical feasibility of exploiting a reserve are likely to be referrable to "exploration" and therefore within section 37 of the Act.

A further step along the continuum is whether "exploration" continues until a final investment decision is made to proceed with a project in relation to a proven reserve. Again, it was not clear whether expenditure incurred on activities prior to a final investment decision being made are referrable to "exploration" and therefore within section 37 of the Act.

In its decision the Tribunal concluded, after considering the legislative history of the Act, that there is nothing in the legislative history or in the extensive case law referred to by either party to suggest that the term "exploration" should be read as meaning other than its ordinary everyday meaning understood in the context in which it appears. The Tribunal found it useful to borrow from the language of a research report prepared by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics in 1996 (ABARE report) in considering the nature of the activities which naturally fall within the meaning of the word "exploration", as the word would be understood by a user of ordinary English familiar with oil and gas mining.

The ABARE report refers to:

… oil and gas companies using a range of survey techniques to identify prospective fields. These may be geological, gravity, magnetic, seismic (2D and 3D) or geometrical surveys. In prospective areas, new field wildcat wells are drilled to discover the location of accumulations. In the event of a discovery, appraisal wells may also be drilled to provide a more accurate indication of the potential size and quality of the oil and gas resources.

The ABARE report then stated "[if] the discovery is significant, a feasibility study of the field for future development and production is undertaken". The Tribunal took the view that although activities in the nature of feasibility studies were included by the ABARE report as falling within the "exploration phase" as opposed to the "production phase", activity of that kind is of a distinctly different nature to that included within the ordinary meaning of the term "exploration". Accordingly, the Tribunal found at [322]:

… as a matter of fact, that in the context of section 37(1) of the PRRTA Act, the ordinary meaning of the word 'exploration' contemplates the use of any range of survey techniques to identify prospective oil or gas fields. Those survey techniques would include, but not be limited to, geological, gravity and magnetic, seismic (2D and 3D) and a geometric surveys together with any scientific or technical analysis necessarily associated with evaluating their results. 'Exploration' also includes the drilling of appraisal wells to provide a more accurate indication of the potential size and quality of the oil and gas reserves. However, the ordinary meaning of the word 'exploration' does not, in the Tribunal's view, extend to include feasibility studies of the field for future development and production. [emphasis added]


Voting issue---

Limits---they include any activity that potentially gains knowledge, which makes research impossible---the mechanism of “exploration” is the only hope for limits because action in any part of the ocean is topical---limits are key to preparation and clash

Ground---action beyond discovery artificially inflates advantage ground and opens up unique production Affs that change the link direction to generics---ground is key to fairness





Download 0.65 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   ...   17




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page