Some of you probably occasionally have to debate OCS, offshore drilling or some aff related to the extraction of petrofuels from the ocean area. Whats happening right now in the global economy with respect to the price of oil is unprecedented, it impacts the debate topic pretty significantly I thought it would merit a quick posting to explain how it might help you debate these affs. First, Why Look at Oil Prices? --- The price of oil is not just some incidental puzzlepiece of the economy -- it is the single most important commodity traded between nations and its price is a controlling or contributing factor in the price of nearly everything. (Oil is involved in either the production or transportation of basically all commodities, therefore its price impacts their price). Falling oil prices very likely played a significant role in the collapse of the Soviet Union and today are wreaking havoc with Russias economy and putting tons of pressure on Iran and Venezuelas ruling class. In many debate-relevant scenarios, oil prices are the sole determinant of who has negotiating leverage. Which means, no matter what these affs say about signal, the price of oil is usually the only valid warrant for their advantage internal link claims and their impact -- if we win that we are right about this, then the only question is whether or not prices will stay low without the aff reuters/article/2014/12/22/us-saudi-oil-diplomacy-kemp-idUSKBN0K01NN20141222 Second, Low Oil Prices Slays OCS -- there is currently an OVERsupply of places to drill, rigs to drill with and companies that are looking to drill while there is an UNDERsupply of investment for new companies doing exploratory drilling. There is too much oil and no one wants or needs anymore. This means that if, say, Obama announced that more companies could drill in more places (say, in the OCS) the result would be... nada. Low oil prices means companies dont make very much per gallon sold and exploration is risky -- companies will likely just keep pumping the wells they already have and not take the risk of drilling new ones, and in either case, it wont effect prices. Zero solvency -- this evidence cites drilling industry numbers, vote neg on presumption seekingalpha/article/2743425-seadrill-and-north-atlantic-drilling-discuss-the-conditions-in-the-offshore-drilling-industry Third, Status Quo Solves **Production** -- The Gulf of Mexico will set a deepwater drilling **record** by 2016. Zero 1AC evidence will be able to defend a *sufficiency* warrant that is separate from this massive expansion in offshore drilling. Squo solves the aff = neg ballot fool/investing/general/2014/11/17/offshore-drilling-gulf-of-mexico-heading-for-a-new.aspx Finally, it is useful to point this out -- the price of oil is related **mostly** to Saudi Arabia because they are the largest producer in OPEC and thus they have the swing vote about how much oil gets pumped every year which is the single biggest factor in setting the price. The Saudis do this thing whenever the US starts producing a bunch of oil which is that they ratchet up production so the price falls and it drives smaller US producers out of business because suddenly every gallon they pump costs them more than they can sell it for. For some reason, debate people call this backstopping although it amounts to the same flood-the-market price-crushing move that any quasi-monopoly can do to win market share. To win this argument, you should explain this dynamic for **why** the price is low -- the Saudi Arabia vote at OPEC in November to keep prices low for the next six months. This dynamic is fairly well-documented, but this book has some good background: https://books.google/books?id=Qi8BAwAAQBAJ&dq=oil+backstopping+saudi+flood+the+market And more evidence for your 2nc on presumption -- status quo low prices destroy investment for new oil production and are sufficient to resolve dependency newyorker/news/john-cassidy/opecs-holiday-present-helps-everyone-except-frackers Heres conclusionary evidence on the question of exploratory drilling investment -- *lower oil prices* mean that all petroleum energy companies have to borrow at higher interest rates which means that they have *less money* available for drilling and new projects. The aff would do literally nothing -- and the status quo is amply low enough to boost the US economy, either manufacturing or consumer spending businessinsider/good-bad-and-ugly-of-falling-oil-prices-2014-10 And the status quo is already *dangerously low* -- pushing prices *even lower* would cause the global economy to implode. Status quo is sufficient to solve their internal links, which means try or die goes negative telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11288808/Falling-oil-prices-the-benefits-and-the-costs.html And if anyone reads an energy aff with any kind of warming advantage -- No. Low oil prices crush renewable/alternative energy ft/intl/cms/s/0/d328ee8a-8605-11e4-a105-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3MzBoPZrh Richard Branson agrees. He owns a space ship. theguardian/environment/2014/dec/16/cheaper-oil-could-damage-renewable-energies-says-richard-branson Oil prices are pretty interesting and play an outsized role in a lot of things that debaters talk about. And, weirdly, peoples political views in general -- mostly because they are the fastest/closest indicator of how much cash anyone who has to drive to work, go grocery shopping or pay a heating bill will have in their pocket at the end of the month. That Jeremy Warner article says it is currently responsible for the largest downward transfer of wealth in the global economy in this century. Which is kinda rad. So please -- go for whatever, but dont be afraid to school some fools into losing on presumption/squo solves versus affs dont make any sense given the current price of oil. Stay classy and have happy holidays
Posted on: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 07:27:49 +0000