RPS Upgrade

ENDI 2008 RPS Upgrade
DFS Lab
File Title
RPS Upgrade
RPS Upgrade 1
***RPS Aff*** 2
***1AC Materials*** 2
LNG Terror Advantage 2
LNG Environment Advantage 5
***Terror/Econ Advantage*** 9
LNG Explosions Impact 9
LNG Terror Threats High 10
LNG Terror Threats High 11
Ext: Price Spikes possible 12
Ext: Price Spikes Hurt Econ 13
***Environment Advantage*** 14
Whale Add-On 14
Ext: Terminals Increasing 15
Ext: Hurts Biodiversity 16
***Misc RPS Aff*** 17
RPS solves Warming 17
RPS spurs other AE 18
Aff Impact Calc 19
***A/T: States CP*** 20
A/T: States can’t Solve 20
A/T: States CP 21
2AC Ohio DA 22
2AC Ohio DA 23
Ext: Hurts Ohio Economy 24
Ext: Ohio Econ key to US econ 25
***RPS Neg*** 26
***A/T: LNG Advantages*** 26
A/T: LNG Terror Impacts 26
A/T: LNG Environment Impacts 27
A/T: LNG Environment Impacts 28
A/T: Hypoxia/Eutrophication 29
A/T: Hypoxia/Eutrophication 30
Ext: Impacts are Exaggerated 32
Ext: Impacts Exaggerated 33
A/T: LNG Explosions 34
General Solvency: LNG Safe 35
General Solvency: LNG Safe 36
***Misc RPS Neg Cards*** 37
Renewables don’t solve Warming 37
RPS Has High Costs 38
***LNG Prices UQ*** 39
LNG Prices High 39
LNG Prices High 40
LNG Prices High 41
LNG Prices Low 42
1
***RPS Aff***
***1AC Materials***
LNG Terror Advantage

US dependence on LNG continues to grow.
Dr. Rich Ferguson, Research Director of Center for Energy Efficiency And Renewable Technologies, April 2004,
“Natural Gas Update: Winter 2003-2004, U.S. Dependence on Imported Liquefied Natural Gas,” Center for Energy
Efficiency And Renewable Technologies, “www.cleanpower.org/ceert_reports/Risky_Diet_2004.pdf
The U.S. arguably has become dependent on imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). At the end of winter heating
seasons, natural gas in storage is drawn down to the lowest levels of the year. What is remarkable about this year is
the fact that were it not for recent imports of LNG, storage now would be virtually exhausted. 2003 LNG imports
were at record levels but still contributed less than 3% of the total U.S. natural gas supply in 2003. Nevertheless, the
North American gas supply situation is so tight, even this relatively small amount kept prices from skyrocketing.
Even with the LNG, prices were more than double those seen in the 1990s. Without it prices would have been much
higher. We are forced to conclude that the U.S. is now dependent on LNG to prevent the price of natural gas in
North America from reaching levels that cause economic and social disruptions.
This dependence on natural gas puts the economy at risk to price shocks
Dr. Rich Ferguson, Research Director of Center for Energy Efficiency And Renewable Technologies, April 2004,
Thus, after 30 years of dependence on foreign oil, the United States now stands at the threshold of a new kind of
energy dependence. The choice we face is whether we should continue on our present course of reckless
consumption and let ourselves become as irreversibly dependent on overseas gas as we are on overseas oil, or
should we start using our own resources more efficiently and wisely, so that we don’t have to rely on somebody
else’s. Given the costs of natural gas dependence -- the vulnerability of the American economy to price and supply
shocks orchestrated overseas and the further entanglement of American foreign policy in the Middle East -- this
should not be a hard choice to make.
A natural price shock will push the US and the world into economic recession
Michael G. Livingston, June 23, 2004, “Greenspan’s Natural Gas,”
www.laborstandard.org/Environment/Greenspan.htm
Alan Greenspan is worried about gas. No, the powerful chair of the Federal Reserve is not flatulent. He worries about the U.S. supply
of natural gas and what spikes in natural gas prices would do to the economy. In an April 27th talk Greenspan said “more
extensive access to the vast world supply of gas is required” and urged investment in liquefued natural gas (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 4/28/04, p.
D4). This is not the first time Greenspan has talked about natural gas. In June 2003 he worried that price spikes in natural gas prices could wipe
out any economic recovery in the U.S. Greenspan has lots of good reasons to be worried. Worldwide, 40% of all energy comes from oil, 26%
from coal, and 24% from natural gas. Currently, most electricity in the US comes from coal and nuclear power. Both of these power sources have
very serious environmental costs. Increasingly the U.S. power sector is turning to natural gas—90% of all new power plants in the U.S. burn gas.
In addition, with oil supplies declining in the near future, Big Oil is looking to hydrogen as the next major fuel source. Hydrogen can be made
from a number of raw materials, but the cheapest way to produce hydrogen is to make it from natural gas. But here is the problem:
supplies of natural gas in the lower 48 states have been declining since 1976, when gas production in the U.S. reached its Hubbert’s
Peak. And the U.S. lacks the physical infrastructure to import sufficient natural gas from abroad. One consequence of
the declining supply and limited infrastructure has been dramatic price spikes. While the cost of coal, for instance has
been very stable at around $1.30 per million BTUs (British Thermal Units) of power since 1995, the cost of natural gas has
fluctuated between $1.98 per million BTUs in 1995 to $5.47 per million BTUs in 2003. Some industry analysists fear that the price could spike
to $12 per million BTUs this year if there is high demand from either a hot summer or a cold winter. Price spikes in oil prices pushed
the U.S. and the world into recessions in 1974 (the Arab oil embargo), 1979 (the Iranian Revolution), and 1991 (the Persian Gulf War).
These price spikes have a so-called asymmetrical effect—the recessions continue after the prices return to their
previous lower levels. Greenspan knows that a price spike in natural gas would push the U.S. into a serious
recession. Combined with price increases in oil, such a spike in natural gas prices would be deadly.
The impact is nuclear war
Mead, 92 (Walter Russell, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New perspectives quarterly, summer pp. 28)
But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face
a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India -
these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater
danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.
Additionally, LNG accidents pose a security threat

Union of Concerned Scientists, 8-16-05, “Energy and Security,”
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/energy-and-security.html
Much of the U.S. energy system presents significant safety and security risks. Facilities recently put on heightened
security alert include nuclear power plants, hydropower dams, pipelines, refineries, tankers, and the electricity
transmission grid. The risks are obvious: A major accident at a nuclear plant could kill tens of thousands and
contaminate an area the size of Pennsylvania. Reactor containments were not built to withstand the impact of a
commercial jet. Rupturing the hold of a tanker containing liquefied natural gas could send flames over several miles.
Specifically, a LNG disaster would collapse the economy, cause famine, and kill as man as
55 Hiroshima bombs
Stephen Bowman, published author, May 28, 1995, “U.S. still ripe for terror,: The Denver Post, lexis
The destruction, or perhaps even the disruption, of energy supplies could bring on the loss of millions of jobs
virtually overnight, the starvation of hundreds of thousands and to at least some extent an environmental
catastrophe. And there is another reason why energy sources should be a top priority on our national-defense list:
They are so simple to destroy that it is ridiculous to even imagine they are not at the top of the list of terrorist targets.
As one Department of Defense official explained in the wake of the World Trade Center bombing, the terrorist
strives to get the most bang for his buck by achieving the most efficient kill ratio. He can spend $ 5,000 and explode
a bomb in the World Trade Center. Or he can spend $ 1 on a bullet and wipe out the electricity of a whole city. Or
maybe kill millions of people with a small vial of cheap but lethal chemicals. If the option is left open, sooner or
later the terrorist will respond. According to a General Accounting Office report, in 1977, "Successful sabotage of
an LEG (liquefied energy gas) facility in an urban area could cause a catastrophe. We found security precautions and
physical barriers at LEG facilities generally aren't adequate to deter even an untrained saboteur. None of the LEG
storage areas we saw are impervious to sabotage, and most are highly vulnerable." Liquefied energy gas is the
generic term to describe both liquid natural gas - LNG - and liquid petroleum gas - LPG. Even though the energy
content of a single LNG transport tanker is equivalent to that of 55 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs, very little has
been done to assure that LNG shipments are protected from sabotage as they come and go through the ports of some
of our major cities. Regardless of the government's own reports and warnings, LNG ships chug into the hearts of
city harbors, and these cities are in danger of being leveled on any given day. Whereas oil contains more energy
than does LNG, the liquid natural gas is actually more hazardous. Burning oil does not spread far over either water
or land. LNG, on the other hand, is less than half as dense as water, so a single cubic meter of LNG weighs just over
half a ton. One cubic meter of spilled LNG rapidly boils into about 620 cubic meters of natural gas, which mixes
with the air - a mixture of between 5 and 14 percent is flammable. A single cubic meter of spilled LNG can make up
to 12,400 cubic meters of flammable gas-air mixture.
Only a national investment in renewable energy can solve the impending crisis.
John White, Executive Director for Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, April 2004,
Energy is a vital resource for any nation, and especially for the U.S., which uses far more per capita than any other.
Dependence on foreign oil and gas is fundamentally different from dependence on imported manufactured goods.
Every politician pays lip service to “reducing dependence on foreign oil”. Natural gas is a useful fuel, the least
polluting of all the fossil fuels. But now is the time for the nation to think twice before becoming as irreversibly
dependent on imported gas as it is on oil. Developments in the Middle East have tragically demonstrated how vital
energy is to our national security. By declaring our new dependence on foreign gas, perhaps we can muster the
determination to do something about it. With sufficient determination the U.S. can refuse to remain dependent on
LNG. The highest priority must be given to improving the efficiency with which natural gas is used. The next step is
to reduce the need for gas-fired electric generators by investing in renewable energy resources such as wind,
geothermal and solar. Business as usual has led ineluctably to dependence on foreign gas. Only by investing
adequately in efficiency and renewable energy as a nation, can we live within our domestic natural gas supplies.
Renewable energy decreases our continued dependence on LNG

Renewable energy would go even further toward improving the reliability and resilience of the electricity system.
Wind farms and solar arrays carry none of the vulnerability of nuclear or fossil fuel plants. They are small and
geographically dispersed, making them difficult to target. Moreover, they have no fuel supply that can be disrupted
or volatile fuel stocks that can burn. Expanding energy efficiency and increasing renewable energy to 20 percent of
the total energy supply would reduce natural gas use by 31 percent compared to business as usual project-ions. We
would eliminate the need for 975 new power plants of 300 megawatts each, as well as avoiding many miles of new
gas pipelines and power lines. We could retire 14 existing nuclear power plants of 1,000 megawatts each and reduce
coal generation by 60 percent, closing 180 coal plants of 500 megawatts each.
LNG Environment Advantage
Continued US dependence on LNG increases the use and construction of LNG terminals
Energy Business Review, August 31 2007, US LNG terminal building boom will lead to massive underuse of
capacity” www.energy-business-review.com/article_feature.asp?guid=1DD8CDD7-F351-4993-AFDF-
D213B16B9929
LNG use in the US is fuelled mainly by declining indigenous natural gas supplies and the fuel’s widespread use as a
power generation source. The US accounts for 95% of the North American LNG market, where consumption grew
over 1,000% in the 10 years from 1996. Yet, despite this phenomenal growth, LNG remains a niche product within
the US gas market, accounting for just 3% of total gas consumption. High consumption fuelling high investment
and overcapacity Despite its niche position, market players are wagering that LNG will eventually become a major
fuel for primary energy consumption. This means that present volumes will have to increase significantly, at a far
greater rate than the already robust growth rate. With this in mind, there is currently a construction boom in LNG
terminals.
LNG terminals in the Gulf of Mexico discharge heated water, affecting the entire ocean
ecosystem.
Christine Rappleye, Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, Feb 24, 2005, “Plan to warm LNG to gas using Gulf
of Mexico water may kill marine life,” proquest
Feb. 24--A liquefied

natural gas company's plan to use Gulf of Mexico water to warm the LNG to a gas could
devastate marine life, according to biologists. The terminal, proposed by Shell US Gas & Power LLC, would be 38 miles off the
Cameron Parish coast, is apparently the first terminal to propose using the "open loop" system, which would suck in more than 100 million
gallons of Gulf water a day to warm the liquefied natural gas. An Olympic 50 meter competition pool holds approximately one million gallons of
-- water To be stored as a liquid, the gas has to be cooled to at least 260 degrees below zero. "It's going to cause trouble," Richard Harrel, a
Lamar University biology professor, told The Enterprise. The water isn't usually reheated before being pumped back into the
Gulf of Mexico, Harrel said in a telephone interview. The eggs and larval, or juvenile, marine animals like shrimp, crabs
and fish, aren't likely to survive in the chilled water, said Terry Stelly, an Texas Parks and Wildlife Department ecosystem biologist
at the Pleasure Island station. "There aren't many things that are going to be able to survive being sucked in and hit with
negative 270 degree pipes," Stelly said in a telephone interview. Populations of several species of fish, including red fish,
trout and red snapper, crabs, shrimp, jellyfish, worms and coral would all be affected by the super-cold water, Stelly
said. Fish like red snapper would take a double hit, affecting both the survival of the fish and it's food, like shrimp,
Stelly said. Certain marine animals need a specific temperature range to grow and spawn, Stelly said. "The impacts aren't just going to
be in Sabine Lake. It's going to be Gulf wide," Stelly said. "Sooner or later, the impact is going to affect all of us."
The terminal is expected be operational by the end of the decade, according to information from Shell's Web site. The three on-shore terminals
planned for the area will have a "closed loop" system, which uses about 2 percent of the natural gas it carries to warm the rest. "Impacts would
occur to all specials with egg and larval stages in the project area, but available data are insufficient to quantify impacts to most species,"
according to a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard. The report also estimates the
mortality rate would be in the "billions of fish eggs and larvae annually," according to the report.
Collapse of ocean ecosystems ends life on Earth

Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Prof Law, Indiana U School Law, 2003, Lexis
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but
these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically
valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations,
services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive
ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the
global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms,
carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct
sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life.
Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current
evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity,
"indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity.
[*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral
reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is
also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus,
maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they
provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil
spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic
value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have
considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and
about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems
because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not
completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire
lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be
preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine
ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean
we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us.
Additionally, these vaporization terminals devastate the redfish stocks in the Gulf of
Mexico, which are key to fishing industries.
Natural Gas Week, April 25, 2005, “Coast Guard Restarts Review For McMoRan Main Pass Project,” lexis
The US Coast Guard has restarted the clock running on its statutory review period for New Orleans-based
McMoRan Exploration's proposed LNG project in the Gulf of Mexico. In September 2004, the Coast Guard --
which by law has only one year in which to process applications -- stopped the regulatory clock until it obtained
additional information in licensing proceedings for the four terminals proposed in the Gulf: McMoran's Main Pass
Energy Hub, Royal Dutch/Shell's Gulf Landing, ConocoPhillips' CompassPortand Exxon Mobil's Pearl Crossing.
The Gulf Landing and CompassPortreviews are still on hold. One of the main concerns is the possible impact of the
terminals' open-rack vaporizers on marine life, although a Coast Guard spokeswoman stresses that several
unresolved issues contributed to the decision to stop the clock (NGW Jan.24,p2). Open-rack vaporization
technology turns super-cooled LNG back into a gaseous state by employing ambient seawater as the heat medium.
Its main advantage over gas-burning, closed-loop and submerged-combustion vaporizers is financial.
Environmental groups have said the vaporization technology could severely damage redfish stocks in the Gulf of
Mexico. They have countered that any serious impact on the redfish population, one of the key commercial species
in the Gulf, could affect the fishing industries.
Specifically, the fishing industry is key to Florida's economy

Jones 95 (Robert, Executive Director @ Southeastern Fisheries Association, "FLORIDA'S NET BAN--A STUDY
OF THE CAUSES AND EFFECTS," http://www.southeasternfish.org/Documents/commfish.html)
Throughout the history of Florida, commercial fishing has been a vital and important element in the cultural and
economic wealth of the state. In prehistoric times up until the industrial revolution, producers of food were held in
high esteem. Their labors were considered as being noble. After the industrial revolution spread from Europe to the
United States, it was only a matter of time until the coastal areas would experience monumental growth. The hunter-
gatherer culture of the commercial fishermen was bound to run head-on into a new culture in Florida brought about
through the influx of new families to the state at an alarming pace after the end of World War II. From 1905 to about
1975, the Florida commercial fishing industry was respected and appreciated as a major part of the economy. Florida
commercial fishermen produced the most mullet and Spanish mackerel ever during 1942 through 1945, providing
food for the military units fighting for world peace and to help feed a nation at war. It's ironic this class of people
have now been destroyed by the governmental system so many of them fought for and died to preserve.
Florida economic decline undermines the US economy

The Bradenton Herald 7/6/06 (lexis)
If the weakening continues, Florida's economy could suffer, along with the broader U.S. economy. Low growth, with
lower accompanying tax revenue, will raise the federal deficit and further burden the U.S. economy. "Slowing
housing activity often precedes an economic slowdown. With Florida as the largest and most consistent generator of
jobs in the country, a downfall in Florida will inevitably have national repercussions," noted a National
Association of Realtors report.
And the US economy is key to the world economy
Mead 04 (Walter Russell, Kissinger senior fellow in U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations,
"America's Sticky Power," Foreign Policy, March/April, p. ebscohost)
Similarly, in the last 60 years, as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States-government and
private bonds, direct and portfolio private investments-more and more of them have acquired an interest in
maintaining the strength of the U.S.-led system. A collapse of the U.S. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do
more than dent the prosperity of the United States. Without their best customer, countries including China and Japan
would fall into depressions. The financial strength of every country would be severely shaken should the United
States collapse. Under those circumstances, debt becomes a strength, not a weakness, and other countries fear to
break with the United States because they need its market and own its securities. Of course, pressed too far, a large
national debt can turn from a source of strength to a crippling liability, and the United States must continue to justify
other countries' faith by maintaining its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. But, like Samson in the
temple of the Philistines, a collapsing U.S. economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest
of the world. That is sticky power with a vengeance.
The impact of this downturn is nuclear war

Mead, 92 (Walter Russell, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New perspectives quarterly, summer pp. 28)
But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face
a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India -
these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater
danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.
Only a national investment in renewable energy can decrease our dependence on LNG
John White, Executive Director for Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, April 2004,
Energy is a vital resource for any nation, and especially for the U.S., which uses far more per capita than any other.
Dependence on foreign oil and gas is fundamentally different from dependence on imported manufactured goods.
Every politician pays lip service to “reducing dependence on foreign oil”. Natural gas is a useful fuel, the least
polluting of all the fossil fuels. But now is the time for the nation to think twice before becoming as irreversibly
dependent on imported gas as it is on oil. Developments in the Middle East have tragically demonstrated how vital
energy is to our national security. By declaring our new dependence on foreign gas, perhaps we can muster the
determination to do something about it. With sufficient determination the U.S. can refuse to remain dependent on
LNG. The highest priority must be given to improving the efficiency with which natural gas is used. The next step is
to reduce the need for gas-fired electric generators by investing in renewable energy resources such as wind,
geothermal and solar. Business as usual has led ineluctably to dependence on foreign gas. Only by investing
adequately in efficiency and renewable energy as a nation, can we live within our domestic natural gas supplies.
Renewable energy decreases the need for LNG imports

Renewable energy would go even further toward improving the reliability and resilience of the electricity system.
Wind farms and solar arrays carry none of the vulnerability of nuclear or fossil fuel plants. They are small and
geographically dispersed, making them difficult to target. Moreover, they have no fuel supply that can be disrupted
or volatile fuel stocks that can burn. Expanding energy efficiency and increasing renewable energy to 20 percent of
the total energy supply would reduce natural gas use by 31 percent compared to business as usual project-ions. We
would eliminate the need for 975 new power plants of 300 megawatts each, as well as avoiding many miles of new
gas pipelines and power lines. We could retire 14 existing nuclear power plants of 1,000 megawatts each and reduce
coal generation by 60 percent, closing 180 coal plants of 500 megawatts each.
***Terror/Econ Advantage***
LNG Explosions Impact
Natural gas Explosion causes injury over large distances – use in metropolitan areas endangers thousands.
Associated Press 2004, (Karen Testa “Are ships natural gas ‘boat bombs’?” , February 16,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4276348/)
James Fay, a professor emeritus of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is a leading
expert on liquefied natural gas and former chairman of the Massachusetts Port Authority board. He believes a boat
bomb, like the one used against the USS Cole in 2000 would cause at least half of the ship’s cargo to seep over the
water and ignite in a raging blaze.
“There’s no doubt that with a big enough bomb you can blow a hole in the side of the vessel and the cargo will
burn,” Fay said. “It’s well understood that for the big fires we’re talking about that distances like half a mile or so,
you can get second-degree burns to exposed skin in about 30 seconds.”
LNG Terror Threats High
Possibility of terrorist attack remains high
Cindy Hurst, political-military research analyst with the Foreign Military Studies Office, June 2nd 2008, “Back to
Terrorist Threats to Liquefied Natural Gas: Fact or Fiction?,” Cutting Edge News,
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=529
On 14 February 2007, the Saudi Arabian arm of al-Qaeda put out a call to all religious militants to attack oil and natural
gas sources around the world. Through such attacks, according to the call, al-Qaeda hopes to “strangle” the U.S.
economy. Such proclamations give fodder to those who highlight the possibilities that liquefied natural gas (LNG) could
be used as a lethal weapon of mass destruction. Industry officials on the other hand point out the improved security measures in place as a
result of 9/11. While the U.S. continues to pursue LNG as a way to diversify its natural gas resources, in order to meet anticipated future
shortfalls and increase energy security, the opponents and proponents of LNG have been locked in a bitter debate with no solid conclusion.
Proponents are correct in that both safety and security measures currently in place make LNG terminals and ships
extremely hard targets for terrorists. However, it would be imprudent to believe that terrorists are either incapable
or unwilling to attack such targets. It would be equally imprudent to assume that these targets are impenetrable. If
anything, in today’s environment, insiders will always remain a potential threat.
The threat will only increase as the US becomes more dependent on LNG.
However, recent studies run counter to Clarke’s alleged conclusion. One of the best ways to study al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist group, is
through an analysis of historical trends. In early 2007, Rand Corporation released a lengthy analytical report on terrorist targeting preferences for
the Department of Homeland Security. The paper focused on 14 terrorist attacks in which al-Qaeda was believed to have been somehow involved,
either through association, sponsorship, or direction. According to the study, 10 out of the 14 attacks analyzed had either a medium or high
casualty potential. In other words, these attacks were meant to kill people—a lot of people. However, the other four attacks had a low casualty
potential. The study further showed a desire to damage the economy, with 10 of the 14 attacks indicating a medium or high potential to damage
the economy and the other four with a low potential. Based simply on the Rand study, Clarke’s statement that the proposed terminal location
would pose “no threat,” is a dangerous assumption which leaves no room for error. Al-Qaeda and its associates, through propagations
distributed via the Internet, have already expressed an interest in crippling the U.S. economy. To further compound the
argument against Clarke’s conclusion, energy experts expect LNG imports into the U.S. to increase dramatically through
2030. This shift could potentially make LNG an even more desirable target as the U.S. becomes increasingly
dependent on LNG to satisfy its growing natural gas consumption habits.
LNG Terror Threats High
Al-Qaeda patterns increase the probability of an attack

Few groups are capable of implementing an attack on LNG. However, an attack on LNG would fit well with al-Qaeda’s tactics,
techniques, and procedures. Al-Qaeda is a radical Sunni Muslim organization with approximately 50,000 members, located at various
bases of operations in 45 countries. In addition to its own members, al-Qaeda’s network includes groups operating in up to 65 countries. Al-
Qaeda’s objective is to serve as a “defensive jihad” fighting against anyone or anything it perceives as attacking Muslims across the world. As a
result, the group’s aim is to overthrow non-Islamic (or insufficiently Islamic) regimes that seem to oppress their Muslim citizens. In 32 incidents
traced back to al-Qaeda, there were 3,464 deaths and 8,864 injuries. Although there has never been an attack against either an LNG terminal or
tanker, maritime terrorism has been a core part of al-Qaeda and its affiliates’ historical strategy. In 2000, suicide bombers
rammed the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 sailors. In 2002, terrorists rammed the Limburg, a French oil tanker carrying 400,000 barrels of crude
oil. There reportedly have been indications of terrorists planning to hit LNG tankers. In November 2002, the capture of
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, al-Qaeda’s operational commander in the Gulf region, brought to light the idea that terrorists were
already planning to go after such targets. Nashiri, allegedly a specialist in maritime operations, had already played a key role in the
attack on the USS Cole and the Limburg. According to a Western counterterrorism official during an interrogation, Nashiri indicated that al-
Qaeda had information on the vulnerability of supertankers to suicide attacks and the economic impacts they would have. The official informed
The Daily Star that al-Qaeda had a naval manual describing “the best places on the vessels to hit, how to employ limpet mines, fire rockets or
rocket-propelled grenades from high-speed craft, and [how to] turn LNG tankers into floating bombs. They (terrorists) are also shown how to use
fast craft packed with explosives, and the use of trawlers, or ships like that, that can be turned into bombs and detonated beside bigger ships, or in
ports where petroleum or gas storage areas could go up as well. They (manuals) even talk of using underwater scooters for suicide attacks.”
According to Dan Verton in his book Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyberterrorism (2003), “al-Qaeda cells now operate with the assistance of
large databases containing details of potential targets in the U.S. They use the Internet to collect intelligence on those targets, especially critical
economic nodes, and modern software enables them to study structural weaknesses in facilities as well as predict the cascading failure effect of
attacking certain systems.” Al-Qaeda is a “goal-driven organization.” This means that they take action toward an end goal of affecting the “future
state of the world.” Al-Qaeda’s ultimate goal is to establish “an Islamic caliphate,” which will ultimately extend across the global Islamic
community. The biggest obstacle to accomplishing this is the U.S. Therefore, in order to try to achieve this goal, al-Qaeda must first bring down
the U.S. With America’s growing appetite for natural gas, LNG could potentially become one of al-Qaeda’s targets.
LNG a promising terror target

Parfomak 03 (Paul W., Specialist in Science and Technology , Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
Infrastructure Security: Background and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service - Library of Congress.
September 9, 2003. (Acrobat PDF file, 25 pgs, 228 kb))
LNG tankers and land-based facilities are vulnerable to terrorism. Tankers may
be physically attacked in a variety of ways to destroy their cargo–or commandeered
for use as weapons against coastal targets. Land-based LNG facilities may also be
physically attacked with explosives or through other means. Alternatively, computer
control systems may be “cyber-attacked,” or both physical and cyber attack may
happen at the same time. Some LNG facilities may also be indirectly disrupted by
other types of terror strikes, such as attacks on regional electricity grids or
communications networks, which could in turn affect dependent LNG control and safety systems.53 Since LNG is
fuel for power plants, heating, military bases, and
other uses, disruption of LNG shipping or storage poses additional “downstream”
risks, especially in more dependent regions like New England.
No LNG tanker or land-based LNG facility has been attacked by terrorists.
However, similar natural gas and oil facilities have been favored terror targets
internationally. For example, over the past two years, gas and oil pipelines have been
attacked in at least half a dozen countries.54 In June 2002, Moroccan authorities
foiled an Al-Qaeda plot to attack U.S. and British warships, and possibly commercial
vessels, in the Straits of Gibraltar.55 LNG tankers from Algeria en route to the United
States pass through the same waters. In October 2002, the French oil tanker Limberg
was attacked off the Yemeni coast by a bomb-laden boat.56 In the United States,
federal warnings about Al Qaeda threats since September 11, 2001 have repeatedly
mentioned energy infrastructure.57 In June of 2003, for example, U.S. intelligence
agencies warned about possible Al Qaeda attacks on energy facilities in Texas.58
Ext: Price Spikes possible
US dependence on imports makes price spikes inevitable

Dr. Rich Ferguson, Research Director of Center for Energy Efficiency And Renewable Technologies, May 2006,
“US Natural Gas—The Aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,” Center for Energy Efficiency And Renewable
Technologies, http://www.cleanpower.org/ceert_reports/Risky_Diet_2006.pdf
Meanwhile, however, major industrial countries worldwide are also expected to expand LNG imports. The US
increasingly will be competing in rapidly expanding global gas markets, and the international price is impossible to
predict. The impact of imports on US domestic production and prices is also uncertain. Until large quantities of
inexpensive LNG flood the US market, US natural gas prices will continue to be determined by the balance between
North American gas production and consumption together with the price of crude oil.
Ext: Price Spikes Hurt Econ
History proves that natural gas shocks lead to recessions

J. Peter Lynch, Wall Street analyst who has been actively involved in following developments in the renewable
energy sector since 1977 and is regarded as an expert in this area, June 13, 2008, “What is the Real Cost of Fossil
Fuels?” Investor Ideas, http://www.renewableenergystocks.com/PL/news/061308a.asp
Every recession in recent history has been immediately preceded by an oil or natural gas price run up. These “oil
shocks” result in the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars for our economy and the economies around the world.
These problems can be politically driven or supply driven, but in either case it is the result of our excessive
dependence on a non-renewable source of energy. This repeated volatility of oil prices is a major “hidden” cost and
a very significant risk factor for the stability of the world’s economies. Currently the U.S. is spending approximately
$1.75 BILLION PER DAY on imported oil this is a huge drain on our economy, adds to our budget deficit and
severely impacts the confidence levels of consumers everywhere.
Natural gas price fluctuations cripple the US economy

American Gas Association February 2004 (“Frequently Asked Questions About Natural Gas Market Trends”)
http://www.aga.org/Template.cfm?Section=Public_Relations1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=12641
ECONOMIC IMPACT Q: What is the impact of natural gas price fluctuations on the U.S. economy? A: Energy is the
lifeblood of our economy, and natural gas meets one-fourth of the United States’ total energy needs. Volatile natural gas
prices put America at a competitive disadvantage. Natural gas is the backbone of American manufacturing, used to make
steel, glass and chemicals; dry paper; process food; and many other products. This spring, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan
Greenspan made a strong statement, calling the natural gas supply crunch “a very serious problem.” In January 2004,
the U.S. Energy Information Administration issued a forecast that described the vital importance of natural gas to U.S.
economic growth: “The economic recovery drives expanding demand for natural gas through 2005, with increased
requirements from all sectors (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, etc.). The amount of natural gas actually consumed will be limited
by supply considerations. Thus the projected growth of gas demand to 22.6 trillion cubic feet in 2005 (which would be the highest level since
2000) depends critically on the ability of North American gas suppliers to increase production, at least modestly, and on the appearance of at least
some additional imports of liquefied natural gas in 2004 and 2005. Without gains in new supply over the next 2 years, increasing pressure from
the economy is likely to translate into renewed increases in natural gas prices.”
High natural gas prices have ripple effects throughout the US economy
Thomas Content, Staff Writer, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/24/2005 (“Customers Feel Natural Gas Squeeze as Demand Fuels
Increase in Costs, Industry Calls for More Drilling” – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) p. lexis
The soaring price of natural gas has hit home for both consumers and businesses. For We Energies customers, the
cost to heat their homes jumped 50% last winter compared with the year before. And that increase came before a double-digit jump in
prices projected for this winter. For papermakers and manufacturers, energy costs also have taken a toll. Wausau Paper
said its natural gas costs rose $1.1 million in the third quarter, compared with the same period in 2003. Badger Paper Mills Inc. of
Peshtigo said in October that it is operating in a "high-cost environment" and that prices for pulp, employee health insurance and natural gas
were "at historically high levels." The increases have frustrated and confused gas customers. "They've got us over a barrel
and we can't do anything about it. No one?s obviously regulating the market. How are people going to afford this?" asked Dave Garacci
of Milwaukee, who couldn?t believe the increase he saw on his bill this winter, even though he had recently installed an energy-efficient furnace.
"How are these people going to afford this? They're paying through the nose for gasoline, paying through the nose for
electricity, they?re paying through the nose for natural gas ? and now food prices are going up. It?s a joke."
Natural gas threatens recessions the same way oil prices do

Raj Gupta, Chair and CEO, Rohm and Haas Company, 3/19/2003 (Federal News Service) p. lexis
For the U.S. chemical industry, economic survival depends on having access to an abundant and affordable supply of natural
gas. Every recession since World War II has been proceeded by a steep increase in energy prices. In the past it's been the
cost of oil. This time, it may by natural gas, the "other" fuel and the hidden energy crisis. The time has come to pay the piper.
***Environment Advantage***
Whale Add-On
LNG terminals discharge heated ballast water and produce underwater noise—threatening
already endangered whale species
Coastal Advocates 2006, “Overview,” http://www.coastaladvocates.com/facts.html
* The LNG terminal will discharge sewage and ballast water, and heated wastewater
from LNG regasification operations. Construction of gas pipelines could cause
harmful spills of drilling fluids and even contaminated sediments into the near shore
marine environment. Daily vessel traffic from Cabrillo Port also increases the
likelihood of hazardous diesel, oil or sewage spills.
* According to marine mammal experts, endangered blue and humpback whales and
federally protected gray whales migrating north from the calving lagoons of Baja,
commonly feed and travel through the proposed project site, even though BHP
Billiton claims that their occurrence there would be “very unlikely.” Consequently,
these endangered marine mammals will be threatened with asphyxiation and burns
from surface fires in the event of a significant LNG release at Cabrillo Port,
increased chance of injury or death from collisions with Cabrillo Port ship traffic, and
habitat degradation from water pollution.
* Noise from the tankers, the terminal and pipeline construction will be audible above
and underwater for miles around these activities. The underwater noise could harm
these marine mammal species and many others, reduce their ability to communicate
and find food, or cause them to abandon these traditional habitats and migration
routes.
Extinction results via oxygen disruption

Robbins Barstow, PhD, Exec Dir – Cetasean Society International, The Magazine of the Whale and Dolphin
Conservation Society, No. 2, Autumn 1989, http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Movements/General/be-wh-s2.htm
My own rationale for asking the IWC to decide to adopt a management regime of permanent protection for
whales from consumptive commercial exploitation on a global basis is both simple and complex. It is grounded i
pragmatic practicalities of both fact and feeling regarding 'Whales in a Modern World'. I am not here arguing for
the sanctity of all life on earth. I am not advocating equal rights for all animal species. I am seeking to set forth a
rational and moral basis for a future determination by one, specialised, international, human agency that one
order of marine mammals should be managed in this manner. Why whales? My rationale most simply is that
whales are uniquely special! They really are in a class by themselves. Let me cite four major categories of
uniqueness. First, whales are biologically special. Whales include by far the largest animals on earth, growing to
be over 30 metres in length - the blue whale (Balenoptera musculus). Whales include the possessors of by far the
largest brain of any creature ever to have lived on our planet, weighing four or five times as much as the human
brain - the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). Whales include the creators of the most complex, long -
lasting, repetitive sound patterns of any non - human animal - the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).
And whales include species (Tursiops truncatus and some other odontocetes) which exceed humans and all other
groups as well in convolutedness or fissurisation of the cerebral cortex. Marine mammal veterinarian Sam
Ridgway, of the U.S. Naval Ocean Systems Centre in San Diego, has reported findings that the bottlenose
dolphin, in particular, by a variety of measurements (encephalisation quotient, volume of cortex, ratio of brain
weight to spinal cord weight, etc.) ranks just below humans and considerably above other higher primates,
including gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans. In all these ways whales are truly unique biologically! Second,
whales are ecologically special. Whales have evolved as marine mammals over millions of years, with both
baleen and toothed whales probably appearing up to 25 million years ago, long before the development of human
beings and the latter's intrusion in the ocean ecosystem. Whales are at the top of the vast food chain of the sea.
Baleen whales consume the largest amount of zooplankton, and the killer whale (Orcinus orca) is the
world's greatest non- human predator. Whales affect the ocean ecosystem in a uniquely global manner, and
any exploitation of other marine resources, whether krill or fish, must uniquely take into account
cetaceans. Human life depends upon a proper balance in the amount of oxygen inn earth's atmosphere produced
from the plankton that is kept in check most critically by whale consumption.
Ext: Terminals Increasing
Dependence on LNG makes new terminal construction inevitable
ActionPA, March 20 2006, “Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal Proposal,”
www.actionpa.org/lng/
97% of natural gas consumed in the U.S. is from the U.S. and Canada, transported via pipeline.1 However, natural
gas production has peaked in North America. Over time, we're drilling more and more, but finding less and less.2,3
Between 1998 and 2004, natural gas prices more than tripled as imports from Canada slowed and domestic
production failed to keep up with demand.4 To feed the increasing demand, more liquefied natural gas (LNG)
terminals are being proposed, to increase imports from overseas.
LNG regasification expanding

Today’s Financial News 2008 – (Sara Nunnally , “Natural Gas : LNG regasification boom”
http://www.todaysfinancialnews.com/oil-and-energy/natural-gas-lng-plant/)
Regasification is the process by which liquefied natural gas is changed back into gaseous natural gas.
Why is this important? It allows countries to import its natural gas from anywhere in the world. Look at the sharp
increase in the LNG regasification capacity for North America. This growth will be centered in the United States,
which is expected to account for nearly 381 billion cubic meters of imports a year.
The U.S. has seen its natural gas production flatline over the past couple years. We’ve been relying more and more
on imports from Mexico and Canada. New regasification plants will open up the playing field and make the U.S. a
global competitor for world natural gas supplies.
More terminals are coming now

Trading Markets, June 17,2008, “ExxonMobil seeks Gazprom role in BlueOcean LNG terminal”
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1690963/
--Integrated energy major ExxonMobil has offered Russian gas monopoly Gazprom a role in the BlueOcean Energy liquefied
natural gas regasification terminal on the US East Coast, according to Itar-Tass. ExxonMobil is planning to build the $1 billion
BlueOcean Energy liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal off the New Jersey coast, which is expected to have a supply capacity of
around 1.2 billion cubic feet of gas per day. This gas capacity is scheduled to meet the rising demand in New York and New
Jersey.
The oil major is reportedly looking to rope in gas suppliers to secure input to the proposed terminal. Gazprom's deputy CEO
Alexander Medvedev was quoted by Itar-Tass as saying that Gazprom could either have an operator role or become an investor in
the project.
Ext: Hurts Biodiversity
The environmental impacts of LNG terminals is unavoidable—all other claims are biased
Times-Picayune (New Orleans), January 22, 2005, “Invisible victims,” lexis
ConocoPhillips Co., which wants to build a liquefied natural gas terminal south of the Texas-Louisiana state line,
has every reason to downplay the environmental damage such a facility could do in the Gulf of Mexico. But the
Coast Guard, which has regulatory authority over LNG facilities, should demand more than breezy reassurances that
this terminal won’t have a significant impact on fish and other marine life. Open loop systems, like the one that
ConocoPhillips wants to build, use Gulf water to warm and vaporize liquid natural gas, which is 260 degrees below
zero. The process uses millions of gallons of water every day, sucking up fish eggs and larvae, which are killed by
physical damage and sudden temperature change. Steve Lawless, a manager for ConocoPhillips shareholder
relations, said that the water intake for the company’s proposed Beacon Point terminal would be positioned at a
depth where there are few life forms and that screens would be used to filter them out. But scientists have been
skeptical of other LNG terminal proposals that have offered the same solutions. "Deep in the (water) column, there’s
a lot of life," said Julie Morris of the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council, a federal panel that governs
commercial and recreational fishing in the Gulf. "Put it under a microscope, and there’s a lot of life, and those life
stages have to be completed for the fish on the end of the hook to be landed and eaten," she said. That’s a crucial
point, and the management council has estimated that an LNG terminal proposed by Shell US Gas & Power LLC
could reduce redfish landings by 11.5 percent a year -- a million pounds. Indeed, unless ConocoPhillips can pull
water from the murkiest depths of the ocean floor, it’s hard to see how it can avoid killing fish, including
commercially important species.
***Misc RPS Aff***
RPS solves Warming
An RPS will solve for global warming

Union of Concerned Scientists, 08/27/07, “Real Energy Solutions: the Renewable Electricity Standard,”
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/real-energy-solutions-the-renewable-energy-
standard.html
Adopting a strong national renewable energy standard can reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions—the heat-trapping
gas primarily responsible for global warming—from electricity generation. Combined with energy efficiency
improvements, power plant carbon emissions can be significantly reduced. Electricity generation is the leading
source of U.S. carbon emissions, accounting for over 40 percent of the total. An RES will also significantly reduce
emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury, which are linked to acid rain, smog, respiratory illness,
and water contamination. A recent study by the EIA shows that the RES can reduce the cost of controlling power
plant emissions by reducing pressure on natural gas prices.5 An RES would reduce the need to drill for natural gas,
build new pipelines and power lines, and reduce the need to mine, transport and burn coal. Energy efficiency and
renewable energy can be increased faster than developing new fossil and nuclear energy supplies.
RPS spurs other AE
Consensus proves that RPS spurs other AE

Union of Concerned Scientists, 02/08/08, “Experts Agree: Renewable Electricity Standards are a Key
Driver of New Renewable Energy Development,”
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/experts-agree-renewable-electricity-standards-are-a-key-
driver-of-new-renewable-energy.html
More and more renewable energy experts are recognizing that renewable electricity standards are a key driver of
new renewable energy in the United States. A renewable electricity standard—also known as a renewable portfolio
standard or RPS—is a cost-effective, market-based policy that requires electric utilities to gradually increase their
use of renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, and bioenergy. Currently, 21 states and the District of
Columbia have enacted renewable standards, which UCS projects will result in the development of more than
46,000 megawatts (MW) of new renewable energy by 2020 If our country's leaders implemented a national 20
percent by 2020 renewable standard, then we could increase our tota.l renewable energy capacity to 180,000 MW,
while providing significant economic and environmental benefits.
Aff Impact Calc
Energy is the greatest threat facing the world

J. Peter Lynch, Wall Street analyst who has been actively involved in following developments in the renewable
energy sector since 1977 and is regarded as an expert in this area, June 13, 2008, “What is the Real Cost of Fossil
Fuels?” Investor Ideas, http://www.renewableenergystocks.com/PL/news/061308a.asp
In my opinion, “Energy” is the number one problem facing the U.S and the world as we move forward into the 21st
century. In fact, I think that it may be the greatest problem that mankind has ever faced. All the other
“problems” we hear about on the evening news – health care, social security, housing crisis, credit crunch etc. are
ALL “small change” compared to the looming worldwide energy crisis. The problem facing us is so large that I am
really beginning to believe that people, as well as, governments are simply in mass denial and refuse to believe the
magnitude of the approaching problem. Keep in mind that reasonably priced, available energy is what gave birth to
our mighty industrial revolution and is what separates the U.S. and the rest of the developed world from becoming
third world countries.
***A/T: States CP***
A/T: States can’t Solve

National RPS solves better than the states
Electric Utility Week Magazine, June 11, 2007 “Federal RPS is needed now, group says, pointing to problems with state plans”,
pg.11,http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T3956386270&treeMax=true&sort=RELEVANCE&docNo=4&format=GNBFULL&startDocNo=1&tree
Width=0&nodeDisplayName=&cisb=22_T3956386272&reloadPage=false (NNEC, formed in 2006, is a New York-based nonprofit group funded by a charitable
group, The Tamarind Foundation.)
A national renewable portfolio standard would be better than the current patchwork of state-based standards because it would save consumers
money, increase the country's manufacturing base, avoid expensive litigation at the state level and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to
a new report from a nonprofit group.
By establishing a consistent, national mandate and uniform trading rules for renewable energy certificates, a federal RPS "can create a more just
and more predictable regulatory environment for utilities while jump-starting a robust national renewable energy technology sector," said the
Network for New Energy Choices.
Opponents of a national RPS argue that a federal mandate would increase utility rates, and the Bush administration has rejected the mandate idea
on the grounds that it would create "winners and losers" among regions of the country and hardships for areas where renewable resources are not
as prevalent, NNEC said. But it argued that a national RPS calling for 20% of generation from renewable resources by 2020 would decrease
consumer energy bills by an average of 1.5% per year and save consumers billions of dollars.
The nonprofit group has called for federal action before, when it released its report ranking state net metering plans and suggesting that the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission be put in charge on national net metering rules (EUW, 27 Nov '06, 9).
National RPS solves legal battles over state RPS and creates 240,000 new jobs
Legal battles are being waged over state RPS plans and a handful of states, including California, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Texas,
have adopted restrictions on out-of-state renewable resources that many scholars believe violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, NNEC
said. Growing tensions between federal and state regulators has brought about a type of "Commerce Clause brinksmanship" that invites utilities
to challenge the constitutionality of state RPS mandates. One successful legal challenge could cascade into more litigation, "collapsing the entire
state-based RPS structure and destroying the emerging interstate renewable energy market," NNEC said.
On the other hand, a national RPS would lower construction costs for renewable facilities, trim natural gas demand and lower natural gas prices,
provide utilities with a "hedge" against fossil fuel and environmental compliance costs and add manufacturing jobs in areas of the country that are
losing such jobs, NNEC said. A national RPS of 20% would create as many as 240,000 jobs in manufacturing, construction, shipping and finance,
versus 75,000 jobs if the power were provided by fossil fuels.
Although transmission enhancements to support new renewable projects would require about 26,600 miles of new transmission in the next
decade, quadrupling planned expenditures to $56 billion by 2011, case studies show that opposition to power lines turns into support when they
are justified by connecting with renewable generation, NNEC said.
Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat-New Mexico, has proposed legislation calling for the country to have 15% of its generation from renewable
resources by 2020 without preempting any existing state RPS efforts.
Federal RPS solves for the states lack uniformity and allows for the best state RPS
programs to be modeled
But the lack of uniformity among the state RPS rules creates problems, NNEC said. Some states enjoy low utility rates by generating power from
coal while ratepayers in RPS states "pick up the tab for cleaning the air and water and diversifying the nation's electricity generation," the report
said.
In addition, some states ? including Washington state ? exclude hydropower from resources that can be used to meet RPS requirements. That
means that ratepayers there are forced to buy higher-cost renewable energy credits from generators outside the state, NNEC said.
Existing state RPS rules are not fostering enough investment in renewable facilities compared with the growth in electricity demand, and they are
unlikely to make an improvement in the percentage of generation from renewable resources, NNEC said.
While states can be regarded as laboratories for policy innovation and there is a time for accepting "the quirks and foibles of state
experimentation in national energy policy ... Now is the time to model the best state RPS programs and craft a coherent national policy that
protects the interests of regulated utilities and American consumers," the group concluded.
A/T: States CP
Meeting states RPS is unachievable without investment in expensive infrastructure
Tom Tiernan, Senior Editor, Washington Bureau, Electric Utility Week Electric Utility Week, May 5, 2008, “EEI says some RPS
targets ‘unachievable,’ as industry deals with infrastructure debate”, Electric Utility Week, Renewables pg. 7
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T3968643055&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T396
8643058&cisb=22_T3968643057&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=7957&docNo=4
If all mandatory state renewable portfolio standards are met in the US and some 60 GW of renewable resources are added to the power grid by
2025, some hard questions about transmission siting and who will pay for transmission additions need to be answered by the industry and
policymakers, an official with the Edison Electric Institute suggested last week.
The 60-GW figure comes from a study by the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, but David Owens, executive vice
president at EEI, said state RPS rules, combined with interconnection queue issues at independent system operators and the hurdles surrounding
transmission investment are some of the most daunting challenges facing the industry.
In New England and the Northeast, where building energy facilities faces even stiffer resistance than in other parts of the country, there are no
easy answers, Owens and others said at Platts' Northeast Power Markets Forum in Washington.
Compliance with existing RPS laws in about 25 states has been good in meeting early targets, though there have been penalties paid in a few
states, the Lawrence Berkeley report said. Alternative compliance payments, which usually allow power suppliers to pay into a state fund as an
alternative means of meeting RPS targets, of more than $18 million were paid in 2006, and financial penalties of more than $5 million have been
assessed in Texas and Connecticut.
The Texas penalties were less than $50,000 while Connecticut's totaled $5.6 million in 2006, and while state officials call them alternative
compliance payments, the national lab's report called them penalties because they are not automatically recoverable in rates.
Renewable portfolio standards in some states are "unachievable" and are among the challenges the power industry faces in trying to add some $1
trillion in facilities over the next 30 years, Owens said.
State legislators have set renewable and energy efficiency targets too high in some cases, with regulators and utilities negotiating penalty
payments or other ways to address such lofty goals, added Donald Downes, chairman of the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control.
Downes said state legislators crafting RPS rules seem to hold the view that if some renewable power is good, more is better, regardless of
whether the projects or resources are available in a region. Without identifying specific states, Downes said some state lawmakers "haven't been
very realistic" in crafting RPS laws and demand-side management targets.
Several state RPS goals have penalty provisions or payments from power suppliers to support renewable project development if the targets are
not met. Maine, for instance, passed a law in 2007 authorizing the Public Utilities Commission to set an alternative compliance payment that
utilities can pay; the figure was set at $57.12/MWh in 2007. The payment rate will be adjusted annually for inflation starting in 2008, with
revenues going to the state's renewable resource fund.
Companies that fail to comply with the Maine RPS are subject to certain penalties, including license revocation, an optional payment to the
renewable resource fund or other financial penalties determined by the PUC. The commission may waive penalties, however, if it determines that
a utility made a good faith effort but could not reasonably satisfy the portfolio requirement because of market conditions.
Maine's RPS was set at 30% under the state's 1997 restructuring law, but it was amended in 2007 to call for new renewable projects to account for
10% of capacity additions by 2017. The standard is set at 1% for new capacity in 2008 and increases by 1% each year to 2017.
In Connecticut, the standard calls for 23% of power to come from renewable resources by 2020, and 4% to be from combined heat and power
systems, conservation and load management programs or energy efficiency by 2010. Twenty percent of the renewable power must come from
"class one" resources, which include solar, wind, new biomass, landfill gas, fuel cells, ocean thermal power, wave or tidal power and new run-of-
the-river hydropower facilities with a maximum capacity of 5 MW. Three percent of the renewable resources could come from "class two"
facilities, which include trash-to-energy projects, biomass facilities not included in class one and certain hydropower projects, according to the
Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, a project of the North Carolina and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council funded
by DOE.
Power suppliers that fail to comply with the RPS during an annual period must pay 5.5 cents/kWh to the DPUC, with the payments allocated to
the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund for the development of class one renewable projects.
Much like other states in New England, suppliers in Connecticut can meet the RPS target by purchasing renewable energy credits from projects in
other states tracked through the NEPOOL generation information system, provided that the DPUC approves such purchases.
EEI's Owens stressed that with the transmission grid strained ? as evidenced by increasing levels of transmission loading relief requests, and
generation interconnection queues bulging at several ISOs ? the power industry is facing "tremendous tasks" to meet increased power demand.
The debate about who should pay for transmission additions is continuing, with no simple solution in sight, Owens added. State regulators and
regional authorities are driving integrated resource planning at the utility level, while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission plays a large
role in recovery of transmission investments, with the industry caught in between, trying to avoid a "FERC-state train wreck," Owens said.
On the renewable front, with 26 states having some form of RPS, "we are trying to find out what's achievable" and at what cost to the consumer,
Owens said.
Newton, Massachusetts-based renewable project developer UPC Wind Management has planned transmission additions on its own for several of
its projects in order to bring them online sooner and have cost certainty, said Steve Vavrik, the company's vice president of origination.
The company intends to build 90 miles of 345-kV transmission line for a project in Utah and 35 miles of 115-kV line for a 57-MW wind project
in Washington County, Maine, Vavrik said.
2AC Ohio DA
--Ohio RPS mandates cripple its economy
Henry 11/14/04 (Tom, Staff Writer @ Green Energy Ohio, "Proposals seek to tap Ohio's renewable energy
potential," http://www.greenenergyohio.org/page.cfm?pageId=274)
A state House energy panel's report that was issued Oct. 15, 2003, gave mixed signals. "While the majority of the
committee feels utilities should be encouraged to offer a renewable portfolio to customers, the members do not
believe the state should mandate that utilities provide or the government purchase a specific amount of renewable
energy," it said. "Because of the current economic climate, the members also cannot recommend the traditional
incentives, such as tax credits, abatements, or grants."
Outgoing state Rep. Lynn Olman (R., Maumee), who chaired the state House's public utilities committee until the June recess, said he
did not call for hearings on Mr. Skindell's bill because he felt it was too ambitious and could drive up energy
prices.
"I think we need to be moving toward renewables. I'll grant him that. I think the argument will be what percentage over what time," Mr. Olman
said. "If you drive the cost of energy higher, then you make it less likely that industries will locate in Ohio. It's a
very delicate balance."
--Ohio’s economy is key to the US economy
Ohio Department of Development 05 (“Ohio’s Gross State Report,” December,

www.odod.state.oh.us/research/files/E100000001.pdf)
If Ohio were a separate country, it would have the 26th largest economy in the world. The U.S. BEA’s (2005)
preliminary estimate of $419.9 billion (B) for 2004 places Ohio between the Philippines ($430.6B) and Pakistan ($347.3B).
Ohio’s rank between these two countries reflects the size of their larger populations – 87,857,000 and 162,420,000, respectively, vs. 11,459,000 –
as well as their levels of economic development (CIA, 2005; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2004: table 1321; 2005c).2 The table above also shows
that Ohio ranks 7th in America with 3.60% of U.S. GSP. This seventh rank is not, however, uniformly characteristic of every
aspect of Ohio’s economy. Most notably, Ohio was the third greatest source of manufactured goods in America during 2004.
The $84.6B of output was 5.66% of the corresponding national total. Ironically, a higher percentage of durable goods (products usually
expected to last at least three years) – 6.61 – originated in Ohio that year, but Ohio ranked 4thin the nation with $57.0B. Still, it is
noteworthy that in both cases production in Ohio exceeded the totals of more populous states such as Florida, Illinois,
New York, and Pennsylvania. The table following on pages 14-16 highlights the major industries with exceptionally large contributions to
Ohio’s high overall rank in manufacturing during 2003. They include electrical equipment and appliances ($4.5B, 9.46% of the nation-al industry
total, making Ohio the largest source in the country), plastic and rubber products ($5.4B, 7.93%, and again 1stin the nation), primary metal
production ($4.7B, 12.12%, 2nd), fabricated metal products ($9.2B, 8.18%, 2nd), and the pro-duction of motor vehicles, bodies, trailers, and parts
($16.4B, 13.48%, 2nd). Other manufacturing industries with relatively large contributions to Ohio’s total economic output include nonmetallic
mineral products ($2.9B, 6.67%, 4th) and machine-ry ($5.7B, 5.94%, 4th). The table also shows service-providing sectors and major
industries making large contributions to Ohio’s 7th overall rank in 2003. These include truck transportation ($4.8B, 4.98%, 4th),
rail transportation ($1.1B, 4.00%, 4th), and the manage-ment of companies and enterprises ($9.4B, 4.91%, 5th). (2004 data for major industries
are not yet available.) 13
--US economic collapse goes global

Mead 04 (Walter Russell, Kissinger senior fellow in U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations,
“America’s Sticky Power,” Foreign Policy, March/April, p. ebscohost)
Similarly, in the last 60 years, as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States-government and private bonds, direct and portfolio
private investments-more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the strength of the U.S.-led system. A collapse of the U.S.
economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the prosperity of the United States. Without their best customer, countries
including China and Japan would fall into depressions. The financial strength of every country would be severely
shaken should the United States collapse. Under those circumstances, debt becomes a strength, not a weakness, and other countries fear
to break with the United States because they need its market and own its securities. Of course, pressed too far, a large national debt can turn from
a source of strength to a crippling liability, and the United States must continue to justify other countries' faith by maintaining its long-term record
of meeting its financial obligations. But, like Samson in the temple of the Philistines, a collapsing U.S. economy would
inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of the world. That is sticky power with a vengeance.
2AC Ohio DA
--The impact is global nuclear war
Mead 92 (Walter Russell, senior fellow @ Council on Foreign Relations, New perspectives quarterly, summer, pp.
28)
But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period
of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - these countries with their
billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and
Japan did in the '30s.
Ext: Hurts Ohio Economy
Ohio just passed a RPS, but not a 20% requirement which would have crippling economic
effects
Next100.com 4/28/08 ("Ohio: the New Green State," http://www.next100.com/2008/04/ohio-the-new-green-

state.php)
Last Friday Ohio announced that its state senate passed legislation mandating a renewable portfolio standard (RPS).
The bill, awaiting Governor Strickland's signature, mandates that 12.5% of the Ohio's electricity must come from
renewable sources by 2025.
Ohio is now the 26th state in the U.S. to enact a RPS.
In contrast to California's 20% by 2010 RPS goal, this may seem like a fairly weak mandate, but it requires
context. Ohio gets 87% of its power from coal. Moreover, the state is a major producer of coal, meaning that a
move to renewables could have a broader economic impact.
Ohio RPS would kill its economy
Stuebi 07 (Richard, Fellow for Energy and Environmental Advancement at The Cleveland Foundation, "
Reflections on Energy Policy," 9/17, http://www.cleantechblog.com/2007/09/reflections-on-energy-policy.html)
Lastly, I stand chagrined at the difference between Ohio and a state like California. Last year in California, the billionaire titans of the high-tech
21st Century economy went to their Governor (Schwartzenegger) to argue that the passage of climate legislation (what became AB32) was
essential for their state to capture a significant share of the economic opportunity afforded by the cleantech sector, the biggest industry to arise in
the next 50 years. This year in Ohio, the big corporates of the low-tech mid-20th Century -- steel companies, industrial
manufacturers, et al -- are going to their Governor (Strickland) to argue that the passage of a measly RPS will kill our
economy.
Ext: Ohio Econ key to US econ
Ohio economy key to the US economy
Akron Beacon Journal 7/16/06 ("Ohioans live, learn, leave state,"

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/nation/15051080.htm)
• The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that Ohio's real gross state product -- the measure of the total value of goods and services
produced -- grew just 1 percent between 2004 and 2005, ranking the state 47th in growth. Despite that meager rate, Ohio continues to bean
important part of the U.S. economy, ranking sixth in the nation for gross state product.
``We get sort of carried away by growth and we don't think in terms of the levels or the amount of activity that is still occurring here,
and it's significant,'' said Guhan Venkatu, an economic analyst with the Federal Reserve Bank in Cleveland. ``We have
the disadvantage in part of being part of the old productive regions in the country, and it's just natural to expect a lot of the growth to be taking
place in other parts of the country.''
***RPS Neg***
***A/T: LNG Advantages***
A/T: LNG Terror Impacts

Even if terrorists were successful, the impact is tiny
Yeo described the potential impact of such a scenario as severe. According to Raymond, terrorists would most likely
try to create an explosion onboard an LNG tanker by ramming it with a smaller vessel. This could rupture the hull
and cause the gas to escape. However, experts point out that the fire would likely be contained at the site where of
the leak, burning the fuel off as it escapes, and therefore might not be as deadly as would be the case if a vapor cloud
were allowed to form and be ignited.
***card cites Catherine Zara Raymond, of the Jamestown Foundation and Singapore’s Foreign Minister George Yeo
Terrorist attack using LNG unlikely.

ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, 2005 (INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE SAFETY AND
SECURITY RISKS OF IMPORTING LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS: A COMPENDIUM , January, pp. 30-31)
Although the destructive potential of LNG is great, LNG vessels tend to be

expensive, are relatively modern, and are operated by reputable firms. The vessels
generally have robust cargo security systems in place.54 Since the principal risk is
during loading and unloading, LNG ships would be most vulnerable when at port or
awaiting transit at busy maritime choke points (eg Strait of Hormuz leading out of the
Persian Gulf). It is relatively unlikely that a terrorist group could successfully rig the
destruction of an LNG vessel’s cargo.55
A/T: LNG Environment Impacts
New tech ensures that LNG vaporization is safe for the environment.
Oil Daily, April 10, 2008, “Excelerate Touts Green Tanker,” lexis
LNG shipping company Excelerate Energy said on Wednesday it has taken delivery of the first of a new generation
of LNG tankers that combines advanced environmental technologies with the company's proprietary onboard
regasification system. Excelerate said the new vessel, the Explorer, has several unique features that reduce its
environmental footprint. These include "emissions control equipment that reduce NOx [Nitrogen Oxides] emissions
by more than 95% during regas operations and a heat recovery system that nearly eliminates the use of seawater in
the LNG vaporization process". The Explorer expands Excelerate's fleet to four LNG regasification vessels and one
conventional LNG carrier, with one additional vessel under construction and slated for delivery in 2009. Three more
vessels have been ordered and will be delivered later in 2009 or in 2010. Excelerate also owns and operates gas-
receiving facilities in the UK , the US Northeast and the US Gulf of Mexico.
Their impacts are exaggerated and use a flawed methodology

EnergyWashington Week, July 26, 2006, “EPA Report Hints At Dual Approach For Water Rules At LNG
Terminals,” lexis
An internal agency document obtained earlier this year by sister publication Inside EPA -- 2006 Effluent Guidelines
Program Plan: Options Selection -- shows the agency is considering an ELG for the terminals. An industry
consultant would support EPA developing ELG rules because it could help open-loop systems get into operation.
"Someone has to come to a conclusion about this . . . and certainty is better than uncertainty, even if you don't like
the rule." But an EPA spokeswoman says the agency is not considering developing an ELG for open-loop LNG
terminals. "The existing permit-by-permit review of proposed LNG facilities and effluent limits established for these
permits fully protects water quality and the marine environment," the EPA spokeswoman says. EPA's report comes
as several proposed projects that would have used ORV are being withdrawn. In June, ConocoPhillips abandoned its
plans to build an ORV-based LNG terminal off the Alabama coast after Gov. Bob Riley (R) threatened to veto the
permit over the ORV issue Additionally, in May Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) vetoed a McMoran
Exploration Co. permit for an ORV-based LNG facility off the Louisiana coast. The company said it would pursue a
license for a closed-loop system that uses natural gas to regasify the LNG rather than seawater, according to local
press reports. The engineer says the air impacts of burning a small amount of gas -- about 1 percent of the total
brought onshore from the terminal -- are minimal, particularly compared to the water impacts of ORV. But a second
industry source says a study conducted for the industry-supported Center for LNG shows that the methodology used
to determine marine life mortality during the environmental reviews for such facilities may be vastly overstating
environmental harm. The November 2005 study, An Evaluation of the Approaches Used to Predict Potential Impacts
of Open Loop LNG Vaporization Systems on Fishery Resources of the Gulf of Mexico, cites many modeling and
database errors. "Because of the overpredictive nature of the assessments, actual impacts will be substantially less
than the impacts predicted in the EISs," the paper says. This industry source notes that even though the EIS
overstated the harm to fisheries, the EIS ultimately allowed facilities with ORV technology to get permits. -- Dawn
Reeves
A/T: LNG Environment Impacts
Years of history deny their impacts

Paul W. Parfomak, Specialist in Science and Technology Resources, Science, and Industry Division and Aaron
M. Flynn Legislative Attorney American Law Division, May 27, 2004, “Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Import
Terminals: Siting, Safety and Regulation,” www.energy.ca.gov/lng/documents/2004-
05_CRS_RPT_LNG_IMPORT_TERM.PDF
The LNG tanker industry claims an impressive safety record over the last 40 years; since international LNG
shipping began in 1959, tankers have carried over 33,000 LNG cargoes without a serious accident at sea or in port.
16 LNG tankers have experienced groundings and collisions during this period, but none has resulted in a major
spill. The LNG marine safety record is partly due to the double-hulled design of LNG tankers. This design makes
them more robust and less prone to accidental spills than single-hulled oil, fuel, and chemical tankers like the Exxon
Valdez, which caused a major Alaskan oil spill after grounding in 1989. 17 LNG tankers also carry radar, global
positioning systems, automatic distress systems and beacons to signal if they are in trouble. Cargo safety systems
include instruments that can shut operations if they deviate from normal as well as gas and fire detection systems.
Japanese programs prove the terminals don’t hurt the environment

Richard Slawsky, New Orleans CityBusiness (New Orleans, LA), March 7, 2005, “Industry Insider: Liquified
natural gas advocates rebut concerns new terminals will harm Gulf fish,” lexis
As Louisiana races to jump on the liquefied natural gas bandwagon, environmentalists claim construction of
facilities using open-rack vaporizers -systems used to warm LNG back to a gas - threaten redfish in the Gulf of
Mexico. Proponents, however, say concerns are overblown. They say similar technology has been used in Japan for
more than 30 years without harming the environment. "With each facility, the risk of significant impacts to Gulf
fisheries such as redfish and shrimp increases," said Aaron Viles, spokesman for the environmental group Gulf
Restoration Network. "One new terminal could destroy the equivalent of 3.8 percent of Louisiana's annual redfish
catch." That figure represents the worst-case scenario, according to a Coast Guard environmental impact study. The
baseline impact to redfish, according to the study, is .8 percent of the potential annual catch and around .1 percent
for other species of fish. Proponents say the impact from developing LNG infrastructure in Louisiana is easily
mitigated. Pumping cooled seawater deeper, where the temperature difference is not as great, or simply "planting"
more redfish eggs would solve those issues, they said. "For more than 30 years, multiple onshore LNG receiving
stations in Japan have used sea water vaporizers to convert LNG back into a gas," said Eric Smith, consultant to the
Tulane-Entergy Energy Institute. "By using the warmth of the seawater, in itself a form of solar energy, the Japanese
maximize the amount of imported natural gas they have available for power generation while minimizing the
amount of energy consumed in achieving the transformation of the LNG back into a gaseous state."
LNG Spill not a threat to local people or environment.

In addition to these catastrophic hazards, an LNG spill poses hazards on a

smaller scale. An LNG vapor cloud is not toxic, but could cause asphyxiation by
displacing breathable air.44 Such clouds rise in air as they warm, however,
diminishing the threat to people on the ground. Alternatively, extremely cold LNG
could injure people or damage equipment through direct contact.45 The extent of
such contact would likely be limited, however, as a major spill would likely result in
a more serious fire. The environmental damage associated with an LNG spill would
be confined to fire and freezing impacts near the spill since LNG dissipates
completely and leaves no residue (as crude oil does).46
A/T: Hypoxia/Eutrophication
Hypoxia in the Gulf not caused by LNG
USGS 2008 – (“The Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone” http://toxics.usgs.gov/hypoxia/hypoxic_zone.html)
The hypoxic zone in the northern Gulf of Mexico refers to an area along the Louisiana-Texas coast in which water
near the bottom of the Gulf contains less than 2 parts per million of dissolved oxygen, causing a condition referred
to as hypoxia (USEPA: What is Hypoxia?). Hypoxia can cause fish to leave the area and can cause stress or death to
bottom dwelling organisms that can’t move out of the hypoxic zone. Hypoxia is believed to be caused primarily by
excess nutrients delivered from the Mississippi River in combination with seasonal stratification of Gulf waters.
Excess nutrients promote algal and attendant zooplankton growth. The associated organic matter sinks to the bottom
where it decomposes, consuming available oxygen. Stratification of fresh and saline waters prevents oxygen
replenishment by mixing of oxygen-rich surface water with oxygen-depleted bottom water.
Water temperature does not change enough to cause their hypoxia impact.
Broadwater Energy , no date (“Fact and Fiction”
www.broadwaterenergy.com/pdf/Broadwater_Fact_and_Fiction.pdf)
The Broadwater terminal itself will not have any thermal discharges into the Long Island
Sound. The facility will use seawater for ballast purposes and it will be discharged at
ambient temperatures because heating and cooling does not occur at any point while it is
in the FSRU. Any discharges by LNG carriers must meet existing New York State
Department of Environmental Quality estuary regulations that govern ambient
temperatures of any discharges.
The only thermal discharge associated with the Broadwater facility is from the LNG
carriers while they are moored at the facility. The thermal impact is small and
insignificant when compared to shore-based power plants that discharge to Long Island
Sound. Their permitted thermal discharge zones are several hundred acres (Northport =
2,066 acres and Port Jefferson = 611 acres). The LNG carrier thermal discharge zone
associated with Broadwater is only 0.022 acres. This discharge would have no
significant long-term impact on water quality or marine life.
Agriculture causes Hypoxia

Denver Post 2008 (Sarah Loman, “Agriculture blamed as Gulf of Mexico “dead zone” Grows” , Jun 10,
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_9544787)
Scientists from the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium said that this year's "dead zone" could be the largest
since measurements began in the 1980s. The scientists used computer modeling for their prediction and will take
shipboard measurements in July throughout the gulf. The dead zone is caused by an abundance of nutrients from
sources that include fertilizers needed for corn."The nutrients act as a fertilizer just like they would in a corn field,"
causing excessive growth of algae on the ocean floor, Turner said.
The algae consumes oxygen, forcing aquatic creatures like fish and shrimp to flee or die.
He said the increase in corn production as well as heavy rain in the Midwest this spring had caused a higher
concentration of fertilizer in the Mississippi River.
A/T: Hypoxia/Eutrophication
Alt Cause:
Ethanol causes Hypoxia
Star Tribune, 2008 (Conrad Wilson, “Is corn boom expanding Gulf of Mexico’s “Dead Zone”?” June 2,
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/19473599.html?location_refer=Lifestyle)
Fueled in part by the growing ethanol industry, more corn was planted in the United States last year -- 94 million acres,
including 8.4 million in Minnesota -- than in any year since 1944. While projections indicate those totals will be down this year, they will still be
substantial. More soybeans and wheat also will be planted, although they require fewer nutrients.
"The ethanol boom is accelerating an already ongoing nitrogen problem from corn production," said Michelle Perez,
senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group, an environmental and public health organization based in Washington.
soil in the
Eugene Turner, a professor of coastal ecology and oceanography at Louisiana State University, says his research has shown that
Mississippi Delta area accumulates carbon from year to year, which decreases oxygen in the Gulf and ultimately
translates into a larger hypoxic zone.
Although Turner has said that he can't yet scientifically prove that the ethanol boom is causing the growing hypoxic zone, his
research points in that direction. The zone's increase in size in recent years corresponds with the increase in corn planting
and ethanol production, he said.
US Ethanol goals will grow the Gulf dead zone

US News and World Report , 2008 (Kent Garber , “Dead Zones Grow in the Gulf of Mexico” , June 6,
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/06/06/deadzonesgrowinthegulfofmexico.html)
Scientists have monitored the growth of these socalled dead zones since the late 1970s. They have tried to promote policies to reduce their size,
without much success. Last summer, the dead zone along the Gulf of Mexico coast spanned nearly 8,000 square miles—
its thirdlargest occurrence on record and roughly the size of Massachusetts.
Although states have tried to address the problem, cooperation among them is suffering, and federal leadership and funding are lagging. And now,
scientists say, there is a new obstacle: the impact of ethanol production on water quality.
Spurred by recent ethanol mandates and, to a lesser extent, high commodity prices, U.S. farmers are planting recordsize crops. From
2006 to 2007, corn acres rose by about 15 million, mostly in the Mississippi River basin. MidAtlantic farmers are
expected to plant 500,000 more acres of corn, soybeans, and wheat this year than they did in 2006, a 7 percent jump.
To grow more crops, particularly corn, farmers usually have to use more fertilizer. Fertilizer runoff is the primary
contributor to dead zone formation, the source of three quarters of the nitrogen and more than half of the phosphorous in the water. In a
recent study, researchers at the University of British Columbia and the University of Wisconsin found that the U.S. government's goal to produce
36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, with a maximum of 15 billion from corn, would most likely increase the
nitrogen flow to the Gulf by 10 to 20 percent.
"It is hard to be critical of a farmer if your crop is all you have," says Simon Donner, the paper's coauthor. Yet the new biofuel policies, he
says, seem to make it all but impossible to control dead zones in the near future, since cleaning up the Gulf would
require at least a 30 percent reduction in nitrogen levels.
As is often the case, federal subsidies benefit some at the expense of others . Hard data are lacking, but anecdotes of economic
distress abound. At the end of last summer, for example, fishermen, crabbers, and shrimpers in Grand Isle, La., called a news conference to call
attention to the threat of dead zones to their livelihood. Some reported hauls down hundreds of thousands of pounds. The ecological impact
may be worse: Unlike nitrogen, which eventually evaporates as a gas, phosphorus lingers in the water, contributing to
dead zones of the future and the potential for significant environmental damage.
Ext: Impacts are Exaggerated
Comprehensive studies prove that LNG terminals don’t hurt fisheries

Oil & Gas Journal, July 17, 2006, “Study: Proposed offshore gulf LNG terminals will have minor effects on
fish populations,” lexis
Several new offshore LNG terminals that have been licensed or proposed for construction in the northern Gulf of
Mexico will use open-rack vaporization (ORV) or the more general open-loop vaporization (OLV) technology. n1 In
accordance with the Deepwater Port Act, n2 as part of the LNG facilities' licensing requirements, environmental
impact statements (EIS) were issued that predicted impacts to fisheries. The central environmental issue regarding
the use of OLV technology in the gulf is the potential impact on fishery stocks resulting from mortality of early-life
stages of fishes (i.e., eggs and larvae, or ichthyoplankton) entrained in the seawater intakes of these facilities. n3
Although the statements have concluded that overall impacts would be minimal, some comments on the impact
statements have focused on the upper range of the fishery-impact predictions. To address these concerns, the Center
for LNG (CLNG) commissioned an independent study n4 to answer the following questions: 1. Are the EIS
assessments adequate? 2. Are there more scientifically valid approaches that could be used? 3. If so, do these
approaches support the conclusions of the current statements that fishery impacts from the OLV systems will be
minor? The study found that, taken as a whole, data inputs and model approaches used in the impact statements use
conservative assumptions and significantly overestimate the potential for adverse fisheries impacts. Although the
statements conclude that predicted impacts are minimal, those effects are themselves overstated. The study further
found that the impact statements do not quantitatively account for all the factors that affect these estimates and so do
not accurately describe the degree of overestimation associated with these values or their overall uncertainty. This is
an important omission, given the potential for misinterpretation of the EIS findings. Given the errors and
oversimplified assumptions used, the potential upper-limit impacts to fisheries reported in the statements are greatly
overstated. Moreover, the study found that the predicted reductions in the age-1 equivalents stated in the statements
have been compared inappropriately with arbitrarily defined fishery weight statistics (e.g., landings for an individual
state expressed in pounds of fish), thereby greatly inflating the apparent severity of the potential impact. Such
comparisons, whether with total Gulf of Mexico landings or state landings, are inappropriate because of the inherent
uncertainties in the calculation of adult-equivalent weights based only on early-life-stage mortalities. This is highly
uncertain and inappropriate because landing statistics depend on fisheries management decisions and because they
do not account for population compensation effects. Furthermore, the study found that the forward-projection
(adult-equivalent) models used in the impact statements are inconsistent with fisheries stock-assessment methods,
which are used to make other important fishery management decisions. Despite these defects in the analyses
conducted in the environmental impact statements, the underlying data do support and even reinforce the overall
conclusions of the statements--that fisheries impacts from the use of OLVs would be minor. The conclusions of the
statements are therefore appropriate for government decision making, although they are highly conservative.
Ext: Impacts Exaggerated
Flawed methodology proves their impacts are exaggerated
Oil & Gas Journal, July 17, 2006, “Study: Proposed offshore gulf LNG terminals will have minor effects on
fish populations,” lexis
Environmental impact statements prepared by contractors for the US Coast Guard (USCG) and the US Department
of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD) have concluded that the environmental impacts from the OLV
systems of the LNG facilities will be minor n5-n11 and will not likely be significant at the population level. n12 In
these impact statements, potential impacts to fisheries were assessed by comparing estimated fish egg and larval
entrainment mortalities to fishery landings statistics, converting potential impacts (equivalent yield loss in pounds of
fish per year) to a percentage of regional fish harvests, rather than as a percentage of impact on the fish population.
Such estimates of fishery impacts are irrelevant from a fish population standpoint because fish landings are not
population measures but, rather, represent fishing statistics that can change based on fisheries management practices.
The projected impacts to fisheries have resulted in a substantial number of comments on the statements from such
agencies as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and state departments of fish and wildlife, as well as
such nongovernmental organizations as the Sierra Club and the Gulf Restoration Network. These comments
interpret the EIS analyses as predictions of substantial impacts to fisheries and specifically to key species of
recreational and commercial importance, such as red drum. As written, the statements present a paradox in the
overall conclusions concerning potential impacts on fishery resources. For example, on one hand, the EIS for the
Gulf Landing terminal concluded that the predicted red drum equivalent yield loss would represent "a long-term
minor adverse impact on the taxa of concern" and that "the impact of the proposed ORV would be less than the
impact of fishing on this resource." n6 (Taxa, plural for "taxon," refers to a taxonomic group.) On the other hand,
based on conservative assumptions, the assessment predicted an upper equivalent yield loss estimate that is 8.3% of
the equivalent landings. It appears that resource managers and others have misinterpreted this upper-bound estimate
as a likely potential reduction in the fishery. n13 To address these concerns, the CLNG's independent evaluation of
the EIS analyses n4 was commissioned to assess the realism and accuracy of the predicted fisheries impacts. The
study reviewed the methods used in the statements for appropriateness and accuracy. It evaluated fisheries impact
predictions for their degree of conservatism and relative uncertainty of scientific assumptions. It also evaluated the
adequacy of the fisheries data used to predict impacts. In addition, the study reviewed relevant scientific reports,
including analogous studies conducted for power plants, studies on the distribution of fish eggs and larvae (i.e.,
ichthyoplankton) in the gulf, and studies of the life history characteristics of key species. The results of this
evaluation indicate that the assumptions and uncertainties incorporated in the EIS estimates are conservative, on the
whole, resulting in overestimation of likely impacts.
A/T: LNG Explosions
Their impact of LNG explosion is false – explosion presents less threat than fire, an impact that has been
contained.
The potential hazard from terror attacks on LNG tankers continues to be debated
among experts. One recent study of tankers serving the Everett LNG terminal
assessed the impact of 1) a hand-held missile attack on the external hull, and 2) a
bomb attack from a small boat next to the hull (similar to the Limberg attack). The
study found that “loss of containment may occur through shock mechanisms caused
by small amounts of explosive.”59 The study concluded that “a deliberate attack on
an LNG carrier can result in a ... threat to both the ship, its crew and members of the
public.”60 However, the study also found the risk of a public catastrophe to be small.
For example, the study found that the LNG pool hazard would be less than that for
a gasoline or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) pool.61 The study also concluded that
a vaporized LNG explosion would be unlikely because a missile or bomb presents multiple ignition sources. Other
experts have calculated that an LNG fire under “worst case” conditions could be much more hazardous to waterfront
facilities.63 Impact estimates for LNG tanker attacks are largely based on engineering models, however, each with its
own input assumptions–so it is difficult to assert definitively how dangerous a real attack would be.
General Solvency: LNG Safe
LNG transport is safe – Regulations solve

California Energy Commission 2007 (“LNG SAFETY” http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/safety.html)
A large array of laws, regulations, standards, and guidelines are currently in place to prevent and lessen the
consequences of LNG releases. These requirements affect LNG facilities' design, construction, operation, and
maintenance.
To address terrorist risk, the Ship and Port Facility Security Code was adopted in 2003 by the member countries of
the International Maritime Organization (IMO), an agency of the United Nations responsible for maritime matters
concerning ship safety. This code requires both ships and ports to conduct vulnerability assessments and to develop
security plans. To heighten security of LNG facilities at American seaports, Congress passed the U.S. Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002, which requires all ports to have federally-approved security plans. Detailed
security assessments of LNG facilities and vessels are also required.
The Department of Transportation (DOT), Research and Special Programs Administration, issues and enforces
federal safety standards for land-based LNG facilities, although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
can impose more stringent safety requirements than DOT's when warranted. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) issues
and enforces regulations for waterfront facilities handling LNG.
All of these federal agencies oversee all land and sea-based LNG operations, with some overlapping authorities and
some new responsibilities. The recent reactivation of LNG facilities on the East Coast and in the Gulf Coast and
permitting of new facilities, have resulted in new methodologies (risk-based decision making) and processes
(security workshops, scoping meetings) to assess and communicate safety risk to the public.
All of your LNG Impacts have low probability .

ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, 2005 (INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE SAFETY AND
SECURITY RISKS OF IMPORTING LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS: A COMPENDIUM , January, p 41)
The committee determined that earthquakes are the most likely events to initiate an
LNG hazard rather than man-made causes, but the likelihood that an earthquake
could lead to a large release of LNG (e.g., caused by sufficient damage to a carrier
or an onshore storage tank) was unlikely to very unlikely. Other findings from the
study were as follows:
• The proposed terminal and the carriers serving it are potential targets for acts
of terror, but an actual attack is unlikely.
• The chance of a maritime accident in San Pablo Bay and in the vicinity of the
Carquinez Strait of a severity sufficient to release LNG is unlikely.
• The authority of the USCG and the measures it applies to similar High
Consequence Vessels (HCVs) in other United States LNG terminals reduces
the threat from acts of terror or sabotage substantially.
• A fireball presents the worst case for radiating heat. It is very unusual for LNG
to form a fireball when released and ignited, because fireball formation
requires the violent mixing of fuel and air prior to ignition.
• LNG will not support a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE),
because it is exceedingly cold and is stored at ambient pressure in very
strong tanks.
• A pool fire involving the entire contents of a storage tank, or the entire
contents of a single LNG carrier cargo tank released onto San Pablo Bay at
the terminal will not cause radiant heat levels dangerous to people and
homes in Vallejo, because the circumstances leading to such a large LNG
release are more likely to ignite the LNG before it reaches populated areas.
General Solvency: LNG Safe
Facility design makes LNG safe
Center for Energy Economics 2003, (Center for Energy Economics at the Bureau of Economic Geology, the University of
Texas at Austin. October 2003 (http://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/lng/documents/CEE_LNG_Safety_and_Se curity.pdf,)
What happens if there is an LNG release at the storage facility?

An LNG release is very unlikely due to the strict design requirements for facilities. The design of LNG
tanks and piping prevents releases or spills. But if there is a rupture of a segment of piping in the facility,
a spill of LNG could occur. The facility is designed so that such a spill would be contained. Liquid
would accumulate in one of several catch basins, where it would evaporate. Emergency shutdown
systems would be involved to minimize any release. The tank impoundment in the facility can contain
more than 100 percent of the LNG tank volume, which assures that the release from any accident will be
fully contained. The rate of evaporation and the amount of vapors generated are dependent on the amount
of liquid spilled and the surface area of the catch basin.
LNG has been safe over the decades.

The favorable safety record of LNG tankers is largely due to their double-hulled
design. LNG carriers are less prone to accidental spills than typical crude oil, fuel,
and chemical tankers because they are inherently more robust.49 LNG tankers also
carry radar and global positioning systems alerting operators to traffic hazards.
Automatic distress systems and beacons send out signals if a tanker is in trouble.
Cargo safety systems include instruments that can shut operations if they deviate
from normal parameters. LNG tankers also have gas and fire detection systems.50
Land based LNG facilities also have had a favorable safety record in recent decades. There are approximately 40
LNG marine terminals and more than 150 peak-shaving plants worldwide. Since the 1944 Cleveland fire, there have
been 10 serious accidents at these facilities directly related to LNG. Two of these accidents caused fatalities of
facility workers–one death at Arzew, Algeria in 1977, and another death at Cove Point, Maryland, in 1979. Another
three accidents at worldwide LNG plants caused fatalities, but these were construction or maintenance accidents in
which LNG was not present.51 According to one marine terminal operator, exhaustive tests have shown that safety
dikes would contain the LNG from a ruptured storage tank, and would limit the effects of any fire to the terminal
grounds.52
***Misc RPS Neg Cards***
Renewables don’t solve Warming
Renewables can’t solve the warming—implementation would take at least 50 years

David Fleming, independent policy analyst, 01/04/2003, “The Wages of Denial,”
http://www.feasta.org/documents/feastareview/fleming.htm#bio
In principle, none of this would matter if renewables could be brought in quickly to fill the gap. We need to do this
now, with intense commitment and urgency; the problem is that we have run out of time to do it successfully.
Renewables will rely on solar power, wind, tide, wave and biomass, supplemented with some coal; they will require
energy storage systems, consisting mainly of hydrogen, along with gas and liquids derived from biomass and coal; a
transformation in efficiency, reducing the energy used by some 70 percent; localised minigrids and radical changes
in patterns of land-use and transport. One indication of how long all this would take to build is provided by the LTI-
Research Group in Germany, who suggest that it could be done in 50 years, given unprecedented priority and
urgency.
No chance that any renewable could ever solve warming

Cutler J. Cleveland is Professor of Geography and Environment at Boston University, where he also is on the
faculty of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, January 27, 2008, “Energy transitions past and future,”
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_transitions_past_and_future
How much renewable energy is needed if it were to replace fossil fuels in the same pattern as coal replaced wood?
The United States first consumed as much coal as wood in about 1885. Total energy use then was about 5.6
quadrillion BTU (1 quadrillion = 1015), equal to about 0.19 TW (Terawatts or 1012 watts). Consider what it would
take today to replace even just one-half of U.S. fossil fuel use with renewable energy: we would need to displace
coal and petroleum energy flows of 2.9 TW, or 32 times the amount of coal used in 1885. Current global fossil fuel
use is about 13 TW, so we need more than 6 TW of renewable energies to replace 50% of all fossil fuels. This is a
staggering shift. Is renewable energy up to this challenge? There are physical, economic, technical, environmental,
and social components to this question. Figure 3 depicts one slice of the picture: pure physical availability as
measured by the global annual flow of various energies. The only renewable energy that exceeds annual global fossil
fuel use is direct solar radiation, which is several orders of magnitudes larger than fossil fuel use. To date however,
the delivery of electricity (photovoltaics) or heat (solar thermal) directly from solar energy represents a tiny fraction
of our energy portfolio due to economic and technical constraints. Most other renewable energy flows could not
meet current energy needs even if they were fully utilized. More importantly, there are important qualitative aspects
to solar, wind, and biomass energy that pose unique challenges to their widespread utilization.
RPS Has High Costs
RPS increases the cost for consumers and businesses
John Murawski, April 8, 2006, “Cheap electricity comes at the price of the environment”, Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, pg.1,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1017745801&sid=7&Fmt=3&clientId=1917&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Apr. 8--North Carolina's cheap electricity comes with a hidden cost.
Abundant supplies of cheap power mean there is little incentive to develop alternative energy to the extent seen in other states.
Less than 2 percent of North Carolina's electricity is produced from renewable sources. Nationwide, two dozen states require their utilities to
generate or purchase as much as 30 percent of their electricity from solar, wind, hydroelectric and other renewables. The extra cost of this
premium power is paid by utility customers through a surcharge on monthly bills. But in some states where electricity comes from burning high-
cost natural gas, alternative- energy programs have even reduced electricity rates.
With North Carolina's two Fortune 500 utilities planning to license new nuclear reactors, the state is preparing to take a hard look at adopting a
mandatory renewables program, also known as a Renewable Portfolio Standard. The projected cost and economic impact of a mandatory
renewables program is a source of intense disagreement between environmentalists and utilities.
In an attempt to resolve the dispute, the N.C. Utilities Commission, which approves rates and reviews operations, is hiring a consultant to conduct
a cost-benefit analysis that would determine what renewables would cost if they were required in the state.
"There is increasing momentum," said N.C. Utilities Commissioner Jim Kerr. "The technology is getting better and less expensive. That's why we
think it's important [that] we thoughtfully study this."
This month, the utilities commission requested a separate report, due this summer, on a range of alternative energy solutions that some
environmentalists would like to see adopted in North Carolina. The issues to be covered include public funds for zero-interest loans and other
energy-efficiency programs, and a program to compensate utilities when customers reduce electricity use through conservation. The report will be
prepared by a group comprising representatives of utilities, environmental groups and Public Staff, the utility commission's consumer advocacy
arm.
"The environmental groups want ... to show that renewables will contribute on a net-positive basis to the economy of North Carolina," said Bob
Koger, a former member of the N.C. Utilities Commission and president of Advanced Energy, a conservation consulting group in Raleigh.
"However, the consultant will also have to look at how any rate increases associated with a renewable portfolio standard will affect existing
industry, and the attraction of new industry."
Last year, a proposal that would have required that 10 percent of the state's electricity come from renewables died in the General Assembly.
Progress Energy officials said the utility couldn't meet its energy needs if it relied on renewables. More than 95 percent of the state's electricity is
generated by nuclear and coal power plants.
Utility officials argued that such a program could harm the state's economy. They estimated that the mandate would raise the average residential
bill by 3.3 percent, or $36 a year. The proposal would raise the annual electricity bill of a bank branch by $288, a grocery store by $7,200 and a
large industrial or manufacturing plant by $504,000, they said.
"Some people would be willing to double or triple rates," Koger said. "Others would not want any increases."
Environmental groups such as the N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network and N.C. Sustainable Energy Association say the utility's
numbers are exaggerated to discredit renewables. Compared with the cost and risk of building a new nuclear plant, they say, renewables are the
surer and cheaper option.
Other environmentalists acknowledge that renewables could cost more in the short run, but they say the efforts are worth the investment. "Energy
ought to be more expensive around here to pay for the [consequences] that wreak havoc on the environment," said William Schlesinger, dean of
Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences. "Low cost doesn't let alternatives gain a foothold."
North Carolina is hardly lacking in renewable resources. Energy experts agree that the state has excellent wind resources in the mountains and
coastal areas, but no commercial operations have been built in the state. That's because wind turbines, which can exceed 200 feet in height, are
prohibited in the mountains by state law and are too controversial for scenic coastlands.
Burning wood waste, farm-animal dung and flammable methane gases that seep from landfills is a largely untapped option. Some have even
described North Carolina and the Southeast as the Saudi Arabia of biomass fuels. The state produces an abundance of hog and poultry waste but
converting it to electricity is still considered too expensive for commercial purposes.
Landfill gas, known as methane, is used on a limited basis. The state has 131 landfills, only a dozen of which are tapped for flammable gas, said
Larry Shirley, director of the N.C. State Energy Office. Utilities are also mixing wood chips with coal.
Progress Energy officials say turning wastes into fuels may be the best renewable option today.
"Some of this stuff with biomass and municipal incineration, those are making a contribution," chief executive Robert McGehee said. "They're
equivalent to a good-sized power plant, probably all added together."
Solar energy is the most expensive of the renewables to generate. And while it might become cost competitive one day, it is still largely seen as a
residential application for running water heaters and household appliances.
A typical residential solar setup costs about $15,000 for 2 kilowatts, enough to meet about 25 percent of a home's energy needs. Only an
estimated 500 homes in North Carolina use solar panels to generate electricity, said Shawn Fitzpatrick, a solar engineer with the N.C. Solar
Center.
That's why some put their faith in public benefits funds, which provide loans and training for businesses and homeowners to cut energy use.
Some think that aggressive promotion of efficiency and conservation methods would level off Progress Energy and Duke Power's energy demand
projections and offset the need for a new nuclear power plant.
"Energy efficiency is really the joker in the deck," Shirley said. "We think if we were very aggressive in the state, we could flatten out those
growth curves."
Credit: The News & Observer, Raleigh, N.C.
***LNG Pric es UQ***
LNG Prices High
LNG Prices have gone up over the last year

Reuters 2008 (Jun 8 , Annika Breidthardt and Luke Pachymuthu , “High LNG prices test consumers' growing
appetite,” , http://www.reuters.com/article/OILINT/idUSSP31553020080608?sp=true)
Qatar, the world's top exporter of LNG, plans to boost its capacity of the gas chilled to liquid form for transport on
ships, by around 8 million tonnes to 39 million tpy by end-2008, with Qatargas train four due to come online in the
third quarter.
Forward gas prices in Britain for winter have risen to 94 pence per therm ($1.8) -- up 40 percent this year -- or about
$18.00 per million British thermal units (mmbtu). This is a more than $5 per mmbtu premium to winter gas prices at
the U.S. Henry Hub market.
Buyers in Asia are likely to pay a premium of $2 a mmbtu above UK or US prices, whichever are higher, analysts
say.
Buyers and sellers might also discuss the merits of diluting the link between the prices of LNG and crude oil, and to
better reflect the true value of the gas by factoring in prices of other utility fuels such as coal, naphtha and fuel oil.
Analysts noted that while U.S. natural gas prices have jumped by more than half so far this year -- versus oil's 36
percent rise -- they have stayed below crude oil's peaks.
Global natural gas prices rising now.

CNN 2008 (“Gazprom predicts rise in export revenues” , June 18,
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/9798bde73d07b8b61aa701c3353ba69c.htm)
Gazprom _ the world's largest exporter of natural gas _ last year accounted for about a quarter of global exports
including shipments to the former Soviet republics, and 40 percent of imports to Western and Central Europe, the
company said.Natural gas export prices are increasing with rising demand, particularly in developing countries, the
United States and Japan, as well as rising costs of alternative heat sources, it said.Gazprom expects this year's
exports outside the former Soviet Union to total 163 billion cubic meters, at an average price of $401 per 1,000
cubic meters.Within the former Soviet Union, sales of 50 billion cubic meters will bring in $7.6 billion _ up from
$5.4 billion off exports of nearly 55 billion cubic meters in 2007.Last year the company sold 150 billion cubic
meters to Western and Central Europe at an average price of $273 (176 euros), the statement said. The price for
natural gas has soared along with crude this year and on Wednesday, added 18 cents reach $13.138 per 1,000 cubic
feet.
High crude oil prices adds to natural gas price

Commodity Online, June 18, 2008, “Moderate rise in Natural Gas prices” http://www.commodityonline.com/futures-
trading/market/Moderate-rise-in-Natural-Gas-prices-6127.html
Natural gas prices have improved, supported by concerns about the adequacy of inventories. According to the latest update by US
Energy Department, natural gas in storage remain around 15 percent down compared to the levels a year ago, and down 1 percent
from the five-year average.
The US Energy Information Administration expects a 2.2 percent growth in total natural gas consumption in 2008.
Potential supply threats due to the Atlantic hurricane season, which officially began on June 1st, underpin natural gas prices.
Higher crude oil price also adds strength to the price of natural gas.
Natural gas for July delivery in the New York Mercantile Exchange has traded as high as $13.025, against the previous closing
price of $12.952 per million British thermal unit.
Natural gas June in MCX has varied in the range Rs 552.40 – 558.00 per mmBtu, and last traded at Rs 557.80, up 1.14 % at
12:45 IST.
LNG Prices High
Natural gas prices have climbed over 60%
Elizabeth Stanton, June 17, 2008, “U.S. Stocks Retreat, Led by Financials; Regional Banks Tumble”, Bloomberg,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aoOyHFo6nYk4&refer=us
June 17 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stocks fell for the first time in four days as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. predicted banks will have to raise $65 billion
in new capital to cover losses and housing starts and industrial production trailed forecasts. Zions Bancorporation tumbled the most in eight
years after the Salt Lake City-based lender projected more losses from bad loans and Goldman said it remains ``cautious'' on regional banks. All
23 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 Banks Index declined as the group slumped to its lowest level since 1996. Boeing Co. and
Deere & Co. retreated on the unexpected drop in factory output, while Lennar Corp. led builders lower on a report showing new-home starts
slumped to a 17-year low. The S&P 500 lost 9.21 points, or 0.7 percent, to 1,350.93. The Dow Jones Industrial Average declined
108.78, or 0.9 percent, to 12,160.3. The Nasdaq Composite Index slid 17.05, or 0.7 percent, to 2,457.73. Two stocks decreased for each that
advanced on the New York Stock Exchange. ``The growth in the market is going to be in companies that increase the supply of materials
and commodities, and the area that's going to struggle is going to be financials because they're going to go through this long period of
deleveraging,'' said Richard Campagna, portfolio manager at Provident Investment Counsel in Pasadena, California, which manages $3
billion. `Ì don't see that changing for the next bunch of years.'' Stocks opened higher after better-than-estimated earnings at Goldman, the
world's biggest securities firm, spurred speculation that the worst losses at financial companies are over. Today's retreat snapped a three day
streak of gains for the S&P 500, its longest of the month. Regional Banks Tumble Zions, the lender with operations in 10 western U.S. states,
tumbled 10 percent to $33.37 for the steepest decline in the S&P 500. Weakness in residential construction and land values in the Southwest will
harm loans and is `èxpected to persist into 2009,'' Zions said in a presentation attached to a regulatory filing today. Goldman analysts led by
New York-based Richard Ramsden said investors should sell regional banks such as Marshall & Ilsley Corp., which is on its
``conviction sell'' list, and buy trust banks such as Bank of New York Mellon Corp. and State Street Corp., on the firm's ``conviction buy'' list.
Marshall & Ilsley, Wisconsin's biggest bank, fell 5.2 percent to $18.21, a seven-year low. $65 Billion More Large lenders also declined. The
Goldman analysts said U.S. banks may need to raise $65 billion in additional capital as losses and writedowns continue into the first quarter of
2009. Declining home prices, expected to continue falling through the year, are driving the deterioration in the credit markets, Goldman said.
Bank of America Corp. lost $1.08 to $29.24. JPMorgan Chase & Co. retreated 90 cents to $39.04. American International Group
Inc., the world's largest insurer by assets, fell 5.1 percent to $32.38 for the biggest drop in the Dow average after saying it will take a $27 million
pretax charge in the second quarter to cut jobs in a home-lending unit. The S&P 500 Banks Index declined 4.2 percent, while the S&P 500
Financials Index fell 2.9 percent as 87 of its 90 companies retreated. Boeing, the world's second-largest commercial airplane maker, lost 64 cents
to $74.38. Deere, the biggest maker of tractors, slid $1.40 to $79.20. Production in factories, mines and utilities declined 0.2 percent last month
after dropping 0.7 percent in April, the Fed reported. Economists had forecast a gain of 0.1 percent. Capacity utilization, which measures the
proportion of plants in use, fell to 79.4, the lowest since September 2005, when Hurricane Katrina disrupted manufacturing and oil production
along the U.S. Gulf Coast. Housing Slump Lennar led declines in 13 of 15 homebuilders in S&P indexes. Housing starts fell 3.3 percent to a
975,000 pace from a revised 1.008 million in April, the Commerce Department said. The reading was below economists' forecasts and the lowest
since March 1991. Building permits, a sign of future construction, fell 1.3 percent to a 969,000 rate. Marathon Oil Corp. added 3.1 percent to
$53.07, its seventh straight advance. The market is undervaluing the company's production operations, wrote Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Neil
McMahon. The company ``could be on the radar screen as an acquisition target,'' Bernstein said. Energy Rally Thirty-six of 37 energy
companies in the S&P 500 advanced, leading the group to a 1.7 percent gain, even as crude oil fell for a third straight day. Chevron Corp., the
second-biggest U.S. oil company, rose the most in the Dow average. Energy is the best-performing group in the S&P 500 over the past 12
months as oil has almost doubled and natural gas has climbed more than 60 percent. Crude oil for July delivery fell 0.5 percent to
settle at $134.01 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, while natural gas added 0.2 percent to $12.952 per million
British thermal units, the highest price since December 2005. Goldman lost $2.65 to $179.44 after climbing as much as $3.80
earlier. Net income declined to $2.09 billion, or $4.58 a share, in the three months ended May 30 from $2.33 billion, or $4.93, a year earlier,
the New York-based company said. The average estimate of 19 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg was for $3.42 a share. ``When any major
financial reports you always worry about skeletons in the closet, and for the most part Goldman's seems pretty clean,'' said Robert Stimpson,
portfolio manager at Oak Associates Ltd. in Akron, Ohio, which manages $1.4 billion, including Goldman shares. `Ìt's kind of a sigh of relief.''
CME, Monsanto CME Group Inc. climbed 5.3 percent to $441.82 for the biggest gain in the S&P 500. The world's largest futures exchange
received Department of Justice approval yesterday for its planned acquisition of the New York Mercantile Exchange. The $8.6 billion deal still
requires shareholder and regulatory approval. Citigroup Inc. raised the shares to ``buy'' from ``hold.'' Monsanto Co., maker of Roundup weed
killer, advanced 5 percent to a record $142.69, leading gains in materials companies. Syngenta AG of Switzerland, the world's biggest maker of
agricultural chemicals, may raise pesticide prices 10 percent next year to offset rising oil prices, its chief executive said. CF Industries
Holdings Inc., operator of North America's two largest nitrogen-fertilized plants, and Mosaic Co., the world's biggest maker of phosphates
for agriculture, also rallied to records. Prices paid to U.S. producers rose 1.4 percent in May, the biggest increase since November, a Labor
Department report showed. Food prices increased 0.8 percent and fuel advanced 4.9 percent. Excluding food and energy, prices climbed 0.2
percent, matching economists' forecasts. Infinera Corp. fell 26 percent to $10.28, the biggest drop since its June 2007 initial public offering.
The maker of high- speed network systems forecast 2008 revenue below its previous projection. Adjusted revenue for the year will rise 10 percent
from fiscal 2007 invoiced shipments of $309.3 million, the company said. Infinera previously projected 25 percent growth on the same basis.
LNG Prices High
Low import of LNG causes the prices to remain high
Clifford Krauss, National business Correspondent, May 29, 2008, “Global Demand Squezzing Natural Gas
Supply”, New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/business/29gas.html?sq=natural%20gas%20terminals&st=nyt&scp=1&pagewanted=print
CAMERON PARISH, La. — The cost of a gallon of gas gets all the headlines, but the natural gas that will heat many American
homes next winter is going up in price as fast or faster. That fact makes the scene in the languid, alligator-infested marshland here in
coastal Louisiana all the more remarkable. Only a month after Cheniere Energy inaugurated its $1.4 billion liquefied natural gas terminal
here, an empty supertanker sat in its berth with no place to go while workers painted empty storage tanks. The nearly idle terminal is a monument
to a stalled experiment, one that was supposed to import so much L.N.G. from around the world that homes would be heated and factories
humming at bargain prices. But now L.N.G. shipments to the United States are slowing to a trickle, and Cheniere and other companies
have dropped plans to build more terminals. A longstanding assumption of American energy policy has been that natural gas would
be plentiful abroad, and therefore readily available for importation, as production falls off in North America, where many fields are tapped out.
But some experts are starting to question that idea, saying natural gas could be subject to the same explosion in overseas
demand that has made oil so expensive. As it is, the supertankers that were supposed to deliver cargoes of gas from Africa and the Middle East to the
United States are taking them to places like Spain and Japan instead, pushing up gas prices and depleting the nation’s stockpiles as the hurricane season approaches.
“A few years ago people looked at L.N.G. as a solution to North America’s gas needs,” said Nikos Tsafos, an analyst with PFC Energy, a consulting firm. “But today
we see that there is less L.N.G. around than people expected, and there is more competition for that L.N.G. from markets that are willing to pay more than the United
States.” Not long ago, Cheniere was a darling of Wall Street. It was widely praised for having the vision to plan four new liquefied gas terminals around the Gulf of
Mexico to connect the country with supplies of natural gas from places like Nigeria and Egypt, gas once considered so worthless it was burned off. Now the
company’s stock price has sunk from $40 to just over $5 since last fall. “The question that people ask is if L.N.G. doesn’t come to the United States for another year or
While natural gas prices in
two or three, what is going to happen to Cheniere,” acknowledged Charif Souki, the chief executive officer of the company.
the United States have spiked to over $11.80 per thousand cubic feet from $7.50 at the beginning of the year, the
price that gas producers can draw in many other countries in the world is several dollars higher. All they need are terminals in
producing countries that can chill natural gas to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit for shipping across oceans and terminals in consuming countries that can regasify
cargoes. Just about the only place where demand for L.N.G. seems not to be growing is the United States, an abrupt shift from expectations as little as one year ago.
The Sabine Pass terminal was part of an estimated $7 billion construction of eight new L.N.G. receiving terminals being built around the Gulf of Mexico and the
Atlantic Coast over the last five years to guarantee plentiful domestic supplies. With imports about 40 percent of the level of a year ago, and national receiving
terminal capacity poised to double this year, the excess construction of import capacity has alarmed industry executives. However the executives predict that it is only
a matter of time before the white elephants begin to look like a more robust breed. They say American gas suppliers will eventually be willing to pay the higher world
prices on the spot market, especially if a gas shortage ensues after a punishing hurricane season or frigid winter. They also predict future American consumption of
natural gas is poised to increase because of hardening opposition to building new coal-fired electricity generating plants and delays in new nuclear plants. “Over time,
we will need to start importing more gas,” said Darcel L. Hulse, president of Sempra LNG, a division of Sempra Energy, which is building receiving terminals
in Mexico and Louisiana. “We will not have enough.” That was the thinking that spurred the L.N.G. expansion in the United States in the first place. At the beginning
of the decade, government officials and energy experts predicted a decline in domestic natural gas production as conventional fields on-shore and in the Gulf of
Mexico declined. Companies like Cheniere, Sempra Energy and Exxon Mobil began snapping up coastal land and requesting regulatory approval for scores of
terminals. Several other terminals were taken out of mothballs and expanded. But recently domestic natural gas production has been stronger than expected and events
abroad have drawn L.N.G. from the United States to countries that needed it more. Last July an earthquake in Japan forced the closing of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa
World L.N.G. supplies grew even more scarce
nuclear power plant, which in turn has forced Japanese utilities to import huge amounts of L.N.G.
because of a persistent drought in Spain that has crimped that country’s hydroelectric capacity, forcing the Spanish
to increase L.N.G. imports. Prices in Asia and Europe have soared, as producers have sold more supply on the spot market where prices
are higher than those in traditional long term contracts. World demand for natural gas has grown about 2.6 percent a year over
the last decade, but in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa it has averaged 7 percent over the same
period, according to a recent UBS report. Growth in the developing world is expected to be supported in the years ahead by a construction boom in refineries
and power and petrochemical plants. Supplies of L.N.G. are going to grow in the next few years, but experts say they will not be enough to satisfy the growing
demand. Liquefaction plant projects that prepare the gas for shipping in producing nations like Nigeria and Russia are being delayed and even shelved because of
political turbulence, cost overruns and increasing domestic demand for gas in their own countries. Production in one major terminal in Indonesia is sliding because of
a declining field, and production in another in Norway is facing mechanical difficulties. With L.N.G. providing only about 3 percent of total American natural gas
consumption in recent years, the fall in L.N.G. imports has made few headlines. But some experts say those responsible for importing gas are making a mistake by not
buying more L.N.G. at current prices. They warn that the failure to import more L.N.G. is leaving natural gas reserves
precariously low should the country be hit by a harsh hurricane season or cold winter. They say low L.N.G. imports
have helped push American natural prices higher, just not high enough to match the prices of Europe and Asia whose ability to
produce and store gas is far inferior to the United States. Andrew D. Grams, head of North American power and gas trading at Deutsche
Bank, said the United States may eventually pay dearly for not importing more L.N.G. now. He calculated that given the reduced L.N.G. imports and expected energy use through the
summer, the country will have only 3.1 trillion cubic feet of gas in storage at the end of October — almost 1 trillion cubic feet below full storage. “Under a normal scenario, that’s just barely
enough to get through winter,” Mr. Grams said. “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that we may not get enough L.N.G. supply in the United States unless our pricing structure becomes
more competitive with the rest of the world.” Natural gas, unlike oil, is still a regional commodity and its price is only loosely connected to world oil benchmark prices. But L.N.G. has tied
regional markets closer, and the arc of natural gas prices appears to be following close behind oil in recent months because of tightening L.N.G. supplies. The same increases in the prices of steel
and other materials and shortages in labor that are making it more expensive to explore for oil are making L.N.G. development more costly too. Meanwhile, countries that produce oil and gas like
Libya and Algeria are replacing their oil-powered electricity plants with natural gas-burning plants. That way, they are able to export more oil, which costs less to ship than L.N.G. “The value of
gas to you is what people are willing to pay for the oil you are exporting,” said Don Hertzmark, a consultant who has advised several oil companies on L.N.G. projects. “At that point, the gas is
worth a lot of money.” Nevertheless hopes for L.N.G. still survive here. The secretary of energy, Samuel W. Bodman, and a Cajun zydeco band came last month to celebrate the opening of the
Sabine Pass terminal, and a tanker delivered L.N.G. from Nigeria for testing purposes. Workers are testing generators and painting and building five huge storage tanks, each capable of
providing a full day’s supply of gas for Louisiana. Tugboat crews are practicing for any future cargo arrivals. “I know the L.N.G. will come and we’ll make a profit on this,” said Darron Granger,
a Cheniere senior vice president. “I just can’t say when.” This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: May 31, 2008 Because of an editing error, an article in
Business Day on Thursday about the difficulties of importing natural gas misstated the name of a company that builds import facilities. It is Sempra LNG, a division of Sempra Energy — not
Sempra LNGE. This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: June 16, 2008 An article on May 29 about a decline in liquefied natural gas imports misstated the
name of the energy consulting firm that employs Nikos Tsafos, an analyst who commented on shrinking supplies. It is PFC Energy, not PCF Energy.
LNG Prices Low
LNG Prices will go down because of supply increase.

Today’s Financial News 2008 – (Sara Nunnally , “Natural Gas : LNG regasification boom”
http://www.todaysfinancialnews.com/oil-and-energy/natural-gas-lng-plant/)
But here’s the thing: The U.S. is building these plants at a faster rate than it expects to import LNG. In other words,
there will be a glut in the U.S. market — not of natural gas, but of capacity. That’s not good for LNG companies
building these plants when 85% of that capacity will be lying idle.

RPS Upgrade

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

RPS Upgrade

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ENDI 2008 RPS Upgrade

LNG Terror Advantage

Additionally, LNG accidents pose a security threat

Renewable energy decreases our continued dependence on LNG

Feb. 24--A liquefied

Collapse of ocean ecosystems ends life on Earth

Specifically, the fishing industry is key to Florida's economy

Florida economic decline undermines the US economy

The impact of this downturn is nuclear war

Renewable energy decreases the need for LNG imports

LNG Explosions Impact

Al-Qaeda patterns increase the probability of an attack

LNG a promising terror target

US dependence on imports makes price spikes inevitable

History proves that natural gas shocks lead to recessions

Natural gas price fluctuations cripple the US economy

Natural gas threatens recessions the same way oil prices do

Extinction results via oxygen disruption

LNG regasification expanding

More terminals are coming now

RPS solves Warming

An RPS will solve for global warming

Consensus proves that RPS spurs other AE

Energy is the greatest threat facing the world

A/T: States can’t Solve

--Ohio RPS mandates cripple its economy

--Ohio’s economy is key to the US economy

Ohio Department of Development 05 (“Ohio’s Gross State Report,” December,

--US economic collapse goes global

Next100.com 4/28/08 ("Ohio: the New Green State," http://www.next100.com/2008/04/ohio-the-new-green-

Ohio RPS would kill its economy

Akron Beacon Journal 7/16/06 ("Ohioans live, learn, leave state,"

***A/T: LNG Advantages***

A/T: LNG Terror Impacts

Terrorist attack using LNG unlikely.

Although the destructive potential of LNG is great, LNG vessels tend to be

Their impacts are exaggerated and use a flawed methodology

Years of history deny their impacts

Japanese programs prove the terminals don’t hurt the environment

LNG Spill not a threat to local people or environment.

In addition to these catastrophic hazards, an LNG spill poses hazards on a

Agriculture causes Hypoxia

US Ethanol goals will grow the Gulf dead zone

Comprehensive studies prove that LNG terminals don’t hurt fisheries

LNG transport is safe – Regulations solve

All of your LNG Impacts have low probability .

What happens if there is an LNG release at the storage facility?

LNG has been safe over the decades.

Renewables don’t solve Warming

Renewables can’t solve the warming—implementation would take at least 50 years

No chance that any renewable could ever solve warming

LNG Prices High

LNG Prices have gone up over the last year

Global natural gas prices rising now.

High crude oil prices adds to natural gas price

LNG Prices will go down because of supply increase.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

A/T: LNG Advantages