2AC Seabed1. We meet even if the seabed is different from the ocean, developing the seabed also develops the ocean plan doesnt defend drilling in seabed only mandates increasing leasesA countrys EEZ is the seabed UNCLOS 58 [http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf] Article 56 Rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the exclusive economic zone 1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has: (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;We meet when we drll it goes through the entirety of the column

1. Standards2. Their interpretation collapses education resource exploration and energy education is a central part of ocean policy that we should be learning and debating about 3. Aff Ground resource extraction Affs are the only Affs with good US and Federal key warrants its critical to Aff flex 4. No limits explosion we only justify drilling its only a couple extra Affirmatives guaranteed ground, limited literature, and the leeway that the Neg gets with fiat are all reasons to err Aff5. Reasonability the burden should be on the neg to prove that there doesnt exist any good interpretation that we meet otherwise, it creates a race to the bottom as the neg tries to limit out all the affs justifies only our aff is topical 6. No extra topicality - Aff directly mandates development in the ocean - extra topicality is good - increases Neg link ground2AC Land CP The CP doesnt solve the arctic advantage a) Spills status quo Russian drilling makes oil spills inevitable the cornerstone of US leadership should be enhancing spill prevention and control thats Davis and only US leadership ensures Arctic Council credibility b) Leadership only US leadership creates a stable framework of development and creates effective Arctic Council governance thats Davis and Ebinger c) Methane- dont stop methane explosions Methane explosions happening outside of Arctic- they dont solve that Shale is unsustainable- studiesAhmed 14 [June 23 2014 Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/21/shale-gas-peak-oil-economic-crisis Shale gas won't stop peak oil, but could create an economic crisis] (Vaibhav) A new report out last week from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has doubled estimates of "technically recoverable" oil and gas resources available globally. The report says that shale-based resources potentially increase the world's total oil supplies by 11 per cent. Acknowledging fault-lines in its new study, contracted to energy consulting firm Advanced Resources International Inc. (ARI), the EIA said: "These shale oil and shale gas resource estimates are highly uncertain and will remain so until they are extensively tested with production wells." The report estimates shale resources outside the US by extrapolation based on "the geology and resource recovery rates of similar shale formations in the United States." Hence, the EIA concedes that "the extent to which global technically recoverable shale resources will prove to be economically recoverable is not yet clear." Two years ago, following the publication of the EIA April 2011 report a New York Times investigation obtained internal EIA communications showing how senior officials, including industry consultants and federal energy experts privately voiced scepticism about shale gas prospects. One internal EIA document said oil companies had exaggerated "the appearance of shale gas well profitability" by highlighting performance only from the best wells, and using overly optimistic models for productivity projections over decades. The NYT reported that the EIA often "relies on research from outside consultants with ties to the industry." The latest EIA shale gas estimates, contracted to ARI, is no exception. ARI, according to the NYT's 2011 article, has "major clients in the oil and gas industry" and the company's president, Vello Kuuskraa, is "a stockholder and board member of Southwestern Energy, an energy company heavily involved in drilling for gas in the Fayetteville shale formation in Arkansas." Independent studies published over the last few months cast even more serious doubt over the viability of the shale gas boom. A report released in March by the Berlin-based Energy Watch Group (EWG), a group of European scientists, undertook a comprehensive assessment of the availability and production rates for global oil and gas production, concluding that: "... world oil production has not increased anymore but has entered a plateau since about 2005." Crude oil production was "already in slight decline since about 2008." This is consistent with the EWG's earlier finding that global conventional oil production had peaked in 2006 - as subsequently corroborated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 2010. The new report predicts that far from growing inexorably, "light tight oil production in the USA will peak between 2015 and 2017, followed by a steep decline", while shale gas production will most likely peak in 2015. Shale gas prospects outside the US are incomparable to gains made so far there "since geological, geographical, and industrial conditions are much less favourable." Consequently, global gas prices are likely to increase rather than follow the initial US trend. In the meantime, conventional oil production will continue declining, dropping as much as 40 per cent by 2030. The upshot is that the US "will not become a net oil exporter." The EGW report follows two other reports published earlier this year also challenging the conventional wisdom. A Post-Carbon Institute study authored by geologist David Hughes, who worked for 32 years as a research manager at the Geological Survey of Canada, analysed US production data for 65,000 wells from 31 shale plays using a database widely used in industry and government. While acknowledging that shale has dramatically reversed "the long-standing decline of US oil and gas production", this can only: "... provide a temporary reprieve from having to deal with the real problems: fossil fuels are finite, and production of new fossil fuel resources tends to be increasingly expensive and environmentally damaging." Despite accounting for nearly 40 per cent of US natural gas production, shale gas production has "been on a plateau since December 2011 - 80 per cent of shale gas production comes from five plays", some of which are already in decline. "The very high decline rates of shale gas wells require continuous inputs of capital - estimated at $42 billion per year to drill more than 7,000 wells - in order to maintain production. In comparison, the value of shale gas produced in 2012 was just $32.5 billion." The report thus concludes: "Notwithstanding the fact that in theory some of these resources have very large in situ volumes, the likely rate at which they can be converted to supply and their cost of acquisition will not allow them to quell higher energy costs and potential supply shortfalls." Report author Hughes said that the main problem was the exclusion of price and rate of supply: "Price is critically important but not considered in these estimates." He added: "Only a small portion [of total estimated resources], likely less than 5-10 per cent will be recoverable at a low price... "Shale gas can continue to grow but only at higher prices and that growth will require an ever escalating drilling treadmill with associated collateral financial and environmental costs and its long term sustainability is highly questionable." Another report was put out by the Energy Policy Forum, and authored by former Wall Street analyst Deborah Rogers - now an adviser to the US Department of the Interior's Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Rogers warns that the interplay of geological constraints and financial exuberance are creating an unsustainable bubble. Her report shows that shale oil and gas reserves have been: "... overestimated by a minimum of 100% and by as much as 400-500% by operators according to actual well production data filed in various states... Shale oil wells are following the same steep decline rates and poor recovery efficiency observed in shale gas wells." Deliberate overproduction drove gas prices down so that Wall Street could maximise profits "from mergers & acquisitions and other transactional fees", as well as from share prices. Meanwhile, the industry must still service high levels of debt due to excessive borrowing justified by overinflated projections: "... leases were bundled and flipped on unproved shale fields in much the same way as mortgage-backed securities had been bundled and sold on questionable underlying mortgage assets prior to the economic downturn of 2007." Seeking to prevent outright collapse, the report argues, the US is ramping up gas exports so it can exploit the difference between low domestic and high international prices "to shore up ailing balance sheets invested in shale assets." Rogers, who testified last month before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, also expressed scepticism about the EIA's latest assessment: "The EIA actually does retrospective assessments of their forecasting and their track record is dismal... They admit that they overestimated natural gas production 66 per cent of the time and crude 59.6 per cent of the time in their March 2013 assessment for 2012." She added that "there is definitely a bubble." Though it would not have an impact as devastating as the banking crisis, she said: "The oil majors do have losses, but the smaller independents are being shaken out. Chesapeake and others are struggling, like Devon, Continental, Kodiak and Range. Without exception, they all have had a significant deterioration in negative free cash since 2010. This is obviously not sustainable." The impact of this would be greater centralisation, with smaller companies and their assets being absorbed by the oil majors through mergers and acquisitions. Rogers said: "What is most troubling to me is that there appears to be a complacency setting in about transitioning to a more sustainable energy economy. Shales should be used as a bridge. But we are hearing far too much euphoric talk about 100-200 years of natural gas. Therefore no need to worry, it can be business as usual. This is highly problematic in my opinion. We must globally transition away from hydrocarbons."Current drilling unsustainablefields will be exhausted soonEB 12 [Econbrowser, Analysis of current economic conditions and policy, citing David Hughes of the Post-Carbon Institute, "Future production from U.S. shale or tight oil, 12/18/12, www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/12/future_producti.html, 07/26/14]I attended the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco two weeks ago at which I heard a very interesting presentation by David Hughes of the Post Carbon Institute. He is more pessimistic about future production potential from U.S. shale gas and tight oil formations than some other analysts. Here I report some of the data on tight oil production that led to his conclusion. A number of analysts have issued optimistic assessments of the future production potential of U.S. shale or tight oil. For example, the International Energy Agency recently predicted that the U.S. would be producing over 10 million barrels per day of oil and natural gas liquids by 2020 before resuming a gradual decline. Citigroup is even more optimistic. David Hughes has been studying detailed data on each individual well in shale gas and tight oil formations in the United States as part of a study that will be released by the Post Carbon Institute in February. The most successful new oil-producing region is the Bakken in North Dakota and Montana, which currently accounts for 42% of the U.S. tight oil total and accounts for about 1/5 of the tight oil production that is projected by Citigroup for 2022. Hughes finds that once output from a typical Bakken well begins to decline, within 24 months its production flow is down to 1/5 the level achieved at its peak. This is in line with estimated decline rates separately published by the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources. Given the observed decline rates on existing wells, it is then a straightforward mechanical exercise to ask the following question. Suppose that no new wells were drilled after 2010. What would the path of Bakken oil production then look like? Increasing the annual production thus requires not just new wells but an increasing number of new wells each year; Hughes estimates that 820 new wells are needed just to offset Bakken field decline. But a second feature in the data posing challenges for that plan is that while a few wells in the Bakken have proven to be very productive, the average well productivity is much lower. A limited number of lucrative sweet spots account for much of the success so far. Hughes argues that there are limits to the number of new wells that will plausibly be drilled each year and the number of available well locations. These factors make achieving the IEA or Citigroup objectives difficult and mean a much more rapid decline in the production rate after the peak is reached. For example, here are Hughes' calculations if the current drilling rate were maintained-- 1500 new wells per year leading to a tripling in the number of operating wells-- and if the EIA's estimate of remaining productive locations is accepted. By contrast, the Citigroup projection of a continuous plateau after reaching peak production would require tens of thousands more well locations than estimated to be available by the EIA. Oil produced from shale or tight formations is going to be very helpful to the U.S. economy. But this is an expensive way to try to get oil, and there may have been some overselling of how much these fields are actually going to deliver.East Coast McGrath 14 [Environment correspondent, BBC News August 24 2014 'Widespread methane leakage' from ocean floor off US coast http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28898223] (Vaibhav)The unexpected discovery indicates there are large volumes of the gas contained in a type of sludgy ice called methane hydrate. There are concerns that these new seeps could be making a hitherto unnoticed contribution to global warming. The scientists say there could be about 30,000 of these hidden methane vents worldwide. Previous surveys along the Atlantic seaboard have shown only three seep areas beyond the edge of the US continental shelf. Deep seep The team behind the new findings studied what is termed the continental margin, the region of the ocean floor that stands between the coast and the deep ocean. In an area between North Carolina and Massachusetts, they have now found at least 570 seeps at varying depths between 50m and 1,700m. Their findings came as a bit of a surprise. "It is the first time we have seen this level of seepage outside the Arctic that is not associated with features like oil or gas reservoirs or active tectonic margins," said Prof Adam Skarke from Mississippi State University, who led the study. The scientists have observed streams of bubbles but they have not yet sampled the gas within them. However, they believe there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence pointing to methane. Most of the seeping vents were located around 500m down, which is just the RIGHTtemperature and pressure to create a sludgy confection of ice and gas called methane hydrate, or clathrate.

Just in our EEZ = no linkConditionality is a voting issue ---a. Argument under-development --- encourages the neg to shotgun-blast their strategy and wait to see what the 2AC under-covers. b. 2AC strategy --- structurally skews the affs last constructive and gives a huge advantage to the blockc. Perf con- prevent aff offense because cross applicationscounter interp- 1 conditional advocacyOther countries drilling now n/u thisNo impact to heg Maher 11---adjunct prof of pol sci, Brown. PhD expected in 2011 in pol sci, Brown (Richard, The Paradox of American Unipolarity: Why the United States May Be Better Off in a Post-Unipolar World, Orbis 55;1)At the same time, preeminence creates burdens and facilitates imprudent behavior. Indeed, because of Americas unique political ideology, which sees its own domestic values and ideals as universal, and the relative openness of the foreign policymaking process, the United States is particularly susceptible to both the temptations and burdens of preponderance. For decades, perhaps since its very founding, the United States has viewed what is good for itself as good for the world. During its period of preeminence, the United States has both tried to maintain its position at the top and to transform world politics in fundamental ways, combining elements of realpolitik and liberal universalism (democratic government, free trade, basic human rights). At times, these desires have conflicted with each other but they also capture the enduring tensions of Americas role in the world. The absence of constraints and Americas overestimation of its own ability to shape outcomes has served to weaken its overall position. And because foreign policy is not the reserved and exclusive domain of the president---who presumably calculates strategy according to the pursuit of the states enduring national interests---the policymaking process is open to special interests and outside influences and, thus, susceptible to the cultivation of misperceptions, miscalculations, and misunderstandings. Five features in particular, each a consequence of how America has used its power in the unipolar era, have worked to diminish Americas long-term material and strategic position. Overextension. During its period of preeminence, the United States has found it difficult to stand aloof from threats (real or imagined) to its security, interests, and values. Most states are concerned with what happens in their immediate neighborhoods. The United States has interests that span virtually the entire globe, from its own Western Hemisphere, to Europe, the Middle East, Persian Gulf, South Asia, and East Asia. As its preeminence enters its third decade, the United States continues to define its interests in increasingly expansive terms. This has been facilitated by the massive forward presence of the American military, even when excluding the tens of thousands of troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. military has permanent bases in over 30 countries and maintains a troop presence in dozens more.13 There are two logics that lead a preeminent state to overextend, and these logics of overextension lead to goals and policies that exceed even the considerable capabilities of a superpower. First, by definition, preeminent states face few external constraints. Unlike in bipolar or multipolar systems, there are no other states that can serve to reliably check or counterbalance the power and influence of a single hegemon. This gives preeminent states a staggering freedom of action and provides a tempting opportunity to shape world politics in fundamental ways. Rather than pursuing its own narrow interests, preeminence provides an opportunity to mix ideology, values, and normative beliefs with foreign policy. The United States has been susceptible to this temptation, going to great lengths to slay dragons abroad, and even to remake whole societies in its own (liberal democratic) image.14 The costs and risks of taking such bold action or pursuing transformative foreign policies often seem manageable or even remote. We know from both theory and history that external powers can impose important checks on calculated risk-taking and serve as a moderating influence. The bipolar system of the Cold War forced policymakers in both the United States and the Soviet Union to exercise extreme caution and prudence. One wrong move could have led to a crisis that quickly spiraled out of policymakers control. Second, preeminent states have a strong incentive to seek to maintain their preeminence in the international system. Being number one has clear strategic, political, and psychological benefits. Preeminent states may, therefore, overestimate the intensity and immediacy of threats, or to fundamentally redefine what constitutes an acceptable level of threat to live with. To protect itself from emerging or even future threats, preeminent states may be more likely to take unilateral action, particularly compared to when power is distributed more evenly in the international system. Preeminence has not only made it possible for the United States to overestimate its power, but also to overestimate the degree to which other states and societies see American power as legitimate and even as worthy of emulation. There is almost a belief in historical determinism, or the feeling that one was destined to stand atop world politics as a colossus, and this preeminence gives one a special prerogative for ones role and purpose in world politics. The security doctrine that the George W. Bush administration adopted took an aggressive approach to maintaining American preeminence and eliminating threats to American security, including waging preventive war. The invasion of Iraq, based on claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and had ties to al Qaeda, both of which turned out to be false, produced huge costs for the United States---in political, material, and human terms. After seven years of war, tens of thousands of American military personnel remain in Iraq. Estimates of its long-term cost are in the trillions of dollars.15 At the same time, the United States has fought a parallel conflict in Afghanistan. While the Obama administration looks to dramatically reduce the American military presence in Iraq, President Obama has committed tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Distraction. Preeminent states have a tendency to seek to shape world politics in fundamental ways, which can lead to conflicting priorities and unnecessary diversions. As resources, attention, and prestige are devoted to one issue or set of issues, others are necessarily disregarded or given reduced importance. There are always trade-offs and opportunity costs in international politics, even for a state as powerful as the United States. Most states are required to define their priorities in highly specific terms. Because the preeminent state has such a large stake in world politics, it feels the need to be vigilant against any changes that could impact its short-, medium-, or longterm interests. The result is taking on commitments on an expansive number of issues all over the globe. The United States has been very active in its ambition to shape the postCold War world. It has expanded NATO to Russias doorstep; waged war in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan; sought to export its own democratic principles and institutions around the world; assembled an international coalition against transnational terrorism; imposed sanctions on North Korea and Iran for their nuclear programs; undertaken nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan; announced plans for a missile defense system to be stationed in Poland and the Czech Republic; and, with the United Kingdom, led the response to the recent global financial and economic crisis. By being so involved in so many parts of the world, there often emerges ambiguity over priorities. The United States defines its interests and obligations in global terms, and defending all of them simultaneously is beyond the pale even for a superpower like the United States. Issues that may have received benign neglect during the Cold War, for example, when U.S. attention and resources were almost exclusively devoted to its strategic competition with the Soviet Union, are now viewed as central to U.S. interests. Bearing Disproportionate Costs of Maintaining the Status Quo. As the preeminent power, the United States has the largest stake in maintaining the status quo. The world the United States took the lead in creating---one based on open markets and free trade, democratic norms and institutions, private property rights and the rule of law---has created enormous benefits for the United States. This is true both in terms of reaching unprecedented levels of domestic prosperity and in institutionalizing U.S. preferences, norms, and values globally. But at the same time, this system has proven costly to maintain. Smaller, less powerful states have a strong incentive to free ride, meaning that preeminent states bear a disproportionate share of the costs of maintaining the basic rules and institutions that give world politics order, stability, and predictability. While this might be frustrating to U.S. policymakers, it is perfectly understandable. Other countries know that the United States will continue to provide these goods out of its own self-interest, so there is little incentive for these other states to contribute significant resources to help maintain these public goods.16 The U.S. Navy patrols the oceans keeping vital sea lanes open. During financial crises around the globe---such as in Asia in 1997-1998, Mexico in 1994, or the global financial and economic crisis that began in October 2008--- the U.S. Treasury rather than the IMF takes the lead in setting out and implementing a plan to stabilize global financial markets. The United States has spent massive amounts on defense in part to prevent great power war. The United States, therefore, provides an indisputable collective good---a world, particularly compared to past eras, that is marked by order, stability, and predictability. A number of countries---in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia---continue to rely on the American security guarantee for their own security. Rather than devoting more resources to defense, they are able to finance generous social welfare programs. To maintain these commitments, the United States has accumulated staggering budget deficits and national debt. As the sole superpower, the United States bears an additional though different kind of weight. From the Israeli-Palestinian dispute to the India Pakistan rivalry over Kashmir, the United States is expected to assert leadership to bring these disagreements to a peaceful resolution. The United States puts its reputation on the line, and as years and decades pass without lasting settlements, U.S. prestige and influence is further eroded. The only way to get other states to contribute more to the provision of public goods is if the United States dramatically decreases its share. At the same time, the United States would have to give other states an expanded role and greater responsibility given the proportionate increase in paying for public goods. This is a political decision for the United States---maintain predominant control over the provision of collective goods or reduce its burden but lose influence in how these public goods are used. Creation of Feelings of Enmity and Anti-Americanism. It is not necessary that everyone admire the United States or accept its ideals, values, and goals. Indeed, such dramatic imbalances of power that characterize world politics today almost always produce in others feelings of mistrust, resentment, and outright hostility. At the same time, it is easier for the United States to realize its own goals and values when these are shared by others, and are viewed as legitimate and in the common interest. As a result of both its vast power but also some of the decisions it has made, particularly over the past eight years, feelings of resentment and hostility toward the United States have grown, and perceptions of the legitimacy of its role and place in the world have correspondingly declined. Multiple factors give rise toanti-American sentiment, and anti-Americanism takes different shapes and forms.17 It emerges partly as a response to the vast disparity in power the United States enjoys over other states. Taking satisfaction in themissteps and indiscretions of the imposing Gulliver is a natural reaction. In societies that globalization (which in many parts of the world is interpreted as equivalent to Americanization) has largely passed over, resentment and alienation are felt when comparing ones own impoverished, ill-governed, unstable society with the wealth, stability, and influence enjoyed by the United States.18 Anti-Americanism also emerges as a consequence of specific American actions and certain values and principles to which the United States ascribes. Opinion polls showed that a dramatic rise in anti-American sentiment followed the perceived unilateral decision to invade Iraq (under pretences that failed to convince much of the rest of the world) and to depose Saddam Hussein and his government and replace itwith a governmentmuchmore friendly to the United States. To many, this appeared as an arrogant and completely unilateral decision by a single state to decide for itselfwhen---and under what conditions---military force could be used. A number of other policy decisions by not just the George W. Bush but also the Clinton and Obama administrations have provoked feelings of anti-American sentiment. However, it seemed that a large portion of theworld had a particular animus for GeorgeW. Bush and a number of policy decisions of his administration, from voiding the U.S. signature on the International Criminal Court (ICC), resisting a global climate change treaty, detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and what many viewed as a simplistic worldview that declared a war on terrorism and the division of theworld between goodand evil.Withpopulations around theworld mobilized and politicized to a degree never before seen---let alone barely contemplated---such feelings of anti-American sentiment makes it more difficult for the United States to convince other governments that the U.S. own preferences and priorities are legitimate and worthy of emulation. Decreased Allied Dependence. It is counterintuitive to think that Americas unprecedented power decreases its allies dependence on it. During the Cold War, for example, Americas allies were highly dependent on the United States for their own security. The security relationship that the United States had with Western Europe and Japan allowed these societies to rebuild and reach a stunning level of economic prosperity in the decades following World War II. Now that the United States is the sole superpower and the threat posed by the Soviet Union no longer exists, these countries have charted more autonomous courses in foreign and security policy. A reversion to a bipolar or multipolar system could change that, making these allies more dependent on the United States for their security. Russias reemergence could unnerve Americas European allies, just as Chinas continued ascent could provoke unease in Japan. Either possibility would disrupt the equilibrium in Europe and East Asia that the United States has cultivated over the past several decades. New geopolitical rivalries could serve to create incentives for Americas allies to reduce the disagreements they have with Washington and to reinforce their security relationships with the United States. Hegemonic retrenchments key to avoid great power war---maintaining unipolaritys self-defeating which internal link-turns their offense Nuno P. Monteiro 12, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale University, Unrest Assured: Why Unipolarity is Not Peaceful, International Security, Winter 2012, Vol. 36, No. 3, p. 9-40From the perspective of the overall peacefulness of the international system, then, no U.S. grand strategy is, as in the Goldilocks tale, just right.116 In fact, each strategic option available to the unipole produces significant conflict. Whereas offensive and defensive dominance will entangle it in wars against recalcitrant minor powers, disengagement will produce regional wars among minor and major powers. Regardless of U.S. strategy, conflict will abound. Indeed, if my argument is correct, the significant level of conflict the world has experienced over the last two decades will continue for as long as U.S. power remains preponderant. From the narrower perspective of the unipoles ability to avoid being involved in wars, however, disengagement is the best strategy. A unipolar structure provides no incentives for conflict involving a disengaged unipole. Disengagement would extricate the unipoles forces from wars against recalcitrant minor powers and decrease systemic pressures for nuclear proliferation. There is, however, a downside. Disengagement would lead to heightened conflict beyond the unipoles region and increase regional pressures for nuclear proliferation. As regards the unipoles grand strategy, then, the choice is between a strategy of dominance, which leads to involvement in numerous conflicts, and a strategy of disengagement, which allows conflict between others to fester. In a sense, then, strategies of defensive and offensive dominance are self-defeating. They create incentives for recalcitrant minor powers to bolster their capabilities and present the United States with a tough choice: allowing them to succeed or resorting to war in order to thwart them. This will either drag U.S. forces into numerous conflicts or result in an increasing number of major powers. In any case, U.S. ability to convert power into favorable outcomes peacefully will be constrained.117 This last point highlights one of the crucial issues where Wohlforth and I differthe benefits of the unipoles power preponderance. Whereas Wohlforth believes that the power preponderance of the United States will lead all states in the system to bandwagon with the unipole, I predict that states engaged in security competition with the unipoles allies and states for whom the status quo otherwise has lesser value will not accommodate the unipole. To the contrary, these minor powers will become recalcitrant despite U.S. power preponderance, displaying the limited pacifying effects of U.S. power. What, then, is the value of unipolarity for the unipole? What can a unipole do that a great power in bipolarity or multipolarity cannot? My argument hints at the possibility thatat least in the security realmunipolarity does not give the unipole greater influence over international outcomes.118 If unipolarity provides structural incentives for nuclear proliferation, it may, as Robert Jervis has hinted, have within it the seeds if not of its own destruction, then at least of its modification.119 For Jervis, [t]his raises the question of what would remain of a unipolar system in a proliferated world. The American ability to coerce others would decrease but so would its need to defend friendly powers that would now have their own deterrents. The world would still be unipolar by most measures and considerations, but many countries would be able to protect themselves, perhaps even against the superpower. . . . In any event, the polarity of the system may become less important.120 At the same time, nothing in my argument determines the decline of U.S. power. The level of conflict entailed by the strategies of defensive dominance, offensive dominance, and disengagement may be acceptable to the unipole and have only a marginal effect on its ability to maintain its preeminent position. Whether a unipole will be economically or militarily overstretched is an empirical question that depends on the magnitude of the disparity in power between it and major powers and the magnitude of the conflicts in which it gets involved. Neither of these factors can be addressed a priori, and so a theory of unipolarity must acknowledge the possibility of frequent conflict in a nonetheless durable unipolar system. Finally, my argument points to a paradox of power preponderance.121 By putting other states in extreme self-help, a systemic imbalance of power requires the unipole to act in ways that minimize the threat it poses. Only by exercising great restraint can it avoid being involved in wars. If the unipole fails to exercise restraint, other states will develop their capabilities, including nuclear weaponsrestraining it all the same.122 Paradoxically, then, more relative power does not necessarily lead to greater influence and a better ability to convert capabilities into favorable outcomes peacefully. In effect, unparalleled relative power requires unequaled self-restraint.Ocean sprawl is inevitable and new coastal management tools solveCharleston Gazette 1/20/14(Dangerous sprawl: It isn't just urban anymore pg online at lexis//sd)Dear EarthTalk: I recently heard the term "ocean sprawl," which was a new one on me. We all know "sprawl" as it manifests itself above sea level. But in the oceans? Can you enlighten? - Bill Chadwick, Nantucket, MA We are all familiar by now with "urban sprawl" - the uncontrolled spread of urban development into areas beyond the city. But environmentalists warn that the next frontier in sprawl is on the high seas, where the proliferation of fishing, shipping, tourism, resource extraction, energy development, military exercises and other human activity has begun to call into question just how vast our oceans really are. According to the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), our oceans are already under siege from problems like pollution, overfishing and acidification, and increased industrial activity off-shore - leading to so-called "ocean sprawl" - will jeopardize the food, jobs and recreation we have come to depend on the oceans to provide. It's hard to believe, given how much planning goes into various types of development and human activity on land, that the oceans are still like the Wild West - with various entities staking claims on huge stretches of open water for different purposes. A promising approach to combat ocean sprawl is called coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP), a form of zoning for the seas to help define who can do what and where. Says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency charged with predicting changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts, CMSP "identifies areas most suitable for various types or classes of activities in order to reduce conflicts among uses, reduce environmental impacts, facilitate compatible uses and preserve critical ecosystem services to meet economic, environmental, security and social objectives." "Marine planning places sound science and the best available information at the heart of decision-making and brings federal, state, tribal and other partners together to cooperatively develop coastal and marine spatial plans," continues NOAA. "This process is designed to decrease user conflict, improve planning and regulatory efficiencies, decrease associated costs and delays, engage affected communities and stakeholders, and preserve critical ecosystem functions and services." President Obama's 2010 National Ocean Policy directs NOAA and other federal agencies to work with ocean users, industries and coastal communities on ways to implement CMSP in America's off-shore waters to prevent ocean sprawl at home while setting an example for other nations around the world. Nine regional planning bodies are currently tasked with developing detailed plans for their own regions by early 2015, at which point federal policy makers will begin to coordinate implementation. In response to momentum on CMSP, a coalition of industries including offshore energy, shipping, fisheries, recreation, mining and others formed the World Ocean Council to have a say in how and where marine spatial planning is implemented. The group organized a National Business Forum on Marine Spatial Planning in 2011 and will take part in a World Ocean Summit in San Francisco in February 2014. Those of us who appreciate the sea certainly hope that CMSP and other approaches will succeed in turning the tide for oceans and not be undermined by special interests only concerned with bottom lines.Perm drill on land and OCS Doesnt solve Alliance- cant get enough NG on land- Gulf has 30% of it EIA No Date [http://www.eia.gov/special/gulf_of_mexico/ GULF OF MEXICO FACT SHEET] (Vaibhav)The Gulf of Mexico area, both onshore and offshore, is one of the most important regions for energy resources and infrastructure. Gulf of Mexico federal offshore oil production accounts for 23 percent of total U.S. crude oil production and federal offshore natural gas production in the Gulf accounts for 7 percent of total U.S. dry production. Over 40 percent of total U.S. petroleum refining capacity is located along the Gulf coast, as well as 30 percent of total U.S. natural gas processing plant capacity.

Arctic Coop solves Ukraine warRia Novosti 5-22 [RIA Novosti, sometimes shortly RIA is one of the largest news agencies in Russia. Arctic Cooperation May Ease Russia-US Tensions Analyst, May 22, 2014, http://en.ria.ru/world/20140522/190037278/Arctic-Cooperation-May-Ease-Russia-US-Tensions--Analyst.html]WASHINGTON, May 22 (RIA Novosti), Leandra Bernstein Tense relations between Russia and the US and NATO could potentially be cooled through Arctic cooperation, according to the program director at the George Washington Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies. I think the Arctic is, today at least, one of the last places for cooperation with Russia following the Ukrainian crisis, Marlene Laruelle said. US-Russia [Arctic] cooperation will probably be less directed to cooperation on security issues because of the Ukrainian crisis, she specified, but there are several other elements that are still open for discussion. Since 2011 the US has increased its stake in Arctic security and development and currently holds the chairmanship for the Arctic Council. The US is planning to invest $1.5 billion focusing on the Arctic, according to former State Department official Heather Conley. However, US assets in the region are limited and they rely on dated technology and borrowed equipment from other Arctic nations. Russia is currently the only country employing nuclear-powered icebreakers. The securitization trend we see in the Arctic from the Russian side is mostly not an issue of military aggressiveness, but it is a business issue, Laruelle said. Concerning Russias delimitation of its continental shelf and control over the North Sea Pass, Laruelle said Russia is playing by the rules. The demarcation of national and international waterways is contested within the Arctic Council, but the first voyage of a Chinese merchant ship, Hong Xing, through the North Sea Pass last year set a precedent when the ship adhered to all Russian requirements for passage. There are hopes that increased trade will take place through Arctic routes. The route is expected to see between ten and twelve commercial trips this year.A war would cause extinctionWeber 14 (a senior editor at TheWeek.com, graduate of Northwestern University, Peter has worked at Facts on File and The New York Times Magazine. (Peter, March 5th, What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?, http://theweek.com/article/index/257406/what-would-a-us-russia-war-look-like, chm)chart removedAgain, the U.S. and Russia almost certainly won't come to blows over Ukraine. But what if they did? If you asked that question during the Cold War it would be like those fanciful Godzilla vs. King Kong, or Batman vs. Superman match-ups: Which superpower would prevail in all-out battle? But Russia isn't the Soviet Union, and military technology didn't stop in 1991. Here, for example, is a look at U.S. versus Russian/USSR defense spending since the end of the Cold War, from Mother Jones. The U.S. is much wealthier than Russia and spends a lot more on its military. That doesn't mean a war would be easy for the U.S. to win, though, or even guarantee a victory: As Napoleon and Hitler learned the hard way, Russia will sacrifice a lot to win its wars, especially on its home turf. So, what would a war between the U.S. and Russia look like? Here are a few scenarios, from awful to merely bad: Nuclear Armageddon Even with the slow mutual nuclear disarmament since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia each have thousands of nuclear warheads at the ready. As Eugene Chow noted earlier this year, the entire stockpile of U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) 448 active is essentially aimed squarely at Russia. Russia's hundreds of ICBMs are probably returning the favor. In all, the U.S. has about 7,700 nuclear warheads, including 1,950 warheads ready to deploy via ICBM, submarine, and airplane, plus thousands more in mothballs or waiting to be dismantled, according to the latest tally by the Federation of American Scientists. Russia has slightly more warheads overall about 8,500 but a slightly fewer 1,800 of them operational. China, in comparison, has about 250 nuclear warheads, a bit less that France (300) and a bit more than Britain (225). Nuclear war with Russia is still mutually assured destruction. Hopefully, that's still deterrent enough.

Offshore gas is keyforces the US and Canada to cooperateParfomak and Ratner, 11 [June 17, 2011 The U.S.-Canada Energy Relationship: Joined at the Well Paul W. Parfomak Specialist in Energy and Infrastructure Policy Michael Ratner Analyst in Energy Policy, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41875.pdf] Summary The United States and Canada, while independent countries, effectively comprise a single integrated market for petroleum and natural gas. Canada is the single largest foreign supplier of petroleum products and natural gas to the United Statesand the United States is the dominant consumer of Canadas energy exports. The value of the petroleum and natural gas trade between the two countries totaled nearly $100 billion in 2010, helping to promote general economic growth and directly support thousands of energy industry and related jobs on both sides of the border. Increased energy trade between the United States and Canadaa stable, friendly neighboris viewed by many as a major contributor to U.S. energy security. The U.S.-Canada energy relationship is increasingly complex, however, and is undergoing fundamental change, particularly in the petroleum and natural gas sectors. Congress has been facing important policy questions in the U.S.-Canada energy context on several fronts, including the siting of major cross-border pipelines, increasing petroleum supplies from Canadian oil sands, increasing natural gas production from North American shales, and the construction of new facilities for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. Legislative proposals in the 112th Congress could directly influence these developments. These proposals include H.R. 1938, which would expedite consideration of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal, H.R. 909, which would encourage petroleum and natural gas production on the outer continental shelf and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and S. 304, which would support a program to train workers involved with oil and gas infrastructure in Alaska. Other proposals in Congress affecting hydraulic fracturing operations for natural gas production, offshore drilling, or U.S. oil shale development could also affect the U.S.-Canada energy relationship. Traditionally, the energy trade between the United States and Canada, while intertwined, has been uncomplicatedtaking the form of a steadily growing southward flow of crude oil and natural gas to markets in the U.S. Midwest and Northeast. But recent developments have greatly complicated that energy relationship creating new competition and interconnections. Consequently, while energy policies in one country have always inevitably affected the other, their cross-cutting effects in the future may not be widely understood and, in some cases, may be largely unanticipated. For example, policies affecting U.S. shale gas production could affect North American natural gas prices overall, and thus, the costs of producing petroleum from oil sands (which requires large volumes of natural gas for heating). Changing oil sands costs could, in turn, affect Canadian petroleum supplies to the United States, affecting north-south pipeline use and changing U.S. petroleum import requirements from overseas. Changing natural gas prices would also change the economics of Arctic natural gas, however, and influence the development of the Arctic natural gas pipelines, which could provide an alternative source of economic natural gas for oil sands production in Alberta. How such scenarios could play out in reality is open to debate, but they illustrate the tangled web policymakers in both countries must navigate as they consider future energy, environmental, and transportation decisions. As Congress debates legislative proposals affecting the petroleum and natural gas industries, it may be helpful to consider these proposals in the broadest possible North American context, recognizing that the energy sector in Canada may be moved in one direction or another based on policies in Washington, DC. To date, the judgment of Congress has favored a growing U.S.- Canada energy partnershipbut ensuring that this relationship continues to be as mutually beneficial as possible will likely remain a key oversight challenge for the next decades.Cooperation with Canada key to cyber-securityCarafano et al2010 James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Deputy Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Davis Institute, at The Heritage Foundation. Jena Baker McNeill is Policy Analyst for Homeland Security and Ray Walser, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Allison Center at The Heritage Foundation. Richard Weitz, Ph.D., is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for PoliticalMilitary Analysis at Hudson Institute (Expand NORAD to Improve Security in North America,http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/07/expand-norad-to-improve-security-in-north-america)Addressing the wide range of threat s confronting Americas security interests in North America will require NORADs involvement. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallabs failed attempt to blow up a U.S.-bound jetliner was al-Qaedas most recent effort to cause mass casualties in America.[22] In addition,threats toenergy, communication, andcomputer networks persist.Malicious third parties can attack the UnitedStatesthrough vulnerable intermediaries, such as Canada, which offers a huge backdoorinto the U.S. computer networks.Much of the infrastructureof the two nationsfrom railroads to aviation to pipelines and electrical systemsisinextricably intertwined. Canada is also Americas largest trading partner, accounting for many links in U.S. supply chains.NORAD and NORTHCOM have partnered with a number of agenciesincluding the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Strategic Command to protect U.S. networks. This cooperation will help NORAD to secure U.S. systems against potential attack, but NORAD does not currently have a lead cyber-security role.[23]The UnitedStatesneeds todeepen cooperationwith its North American partners on cyber security. Both the Canadian and U.S. economies depend on a secure and functioning cyberspace. Computer systems and infrastructure in both countries are linked and a substantial amount of bilateral trade is conducted through the Internet. Since cyber terrorists and criminals can operate from anywhere,integrationof cyber-security effortsis essential to protect computer infrastructure.Integration is especially necessary for Canada because its 200 law enforcement and 2,500 military personnel dedicated to cyber security are insufficient to prevent cyber attacks effectively.ThroughNORAD, Canada and the United Statescould coordinate cybersecurity withthevarious military commands and civilian agencies.[24] Cooperation with Mexico as its economy and cyber infrastructure develop is also vital, as the U.S. and Mexican governments acknowledged by creating the Working Group on Cyber-Security in 2004.[25]Cyber insecurity causes global nuclear conflict even without an outside invader Corcoran, 9. LTC Edward Corcoran, USA-retired, Ph.D., serves as a Senior Fellow on national security issues at GlobalSecurity.org. Ed ended his military career as a Strategic Analyst at the US Army War College where he chaired studies for the Office of the Deputy Chief of Operations. STRATEGIC NUCLEAR TARGETS, 4-21, http://sitrep.globalsecurity.org/articles/090421301-strategic-nuclear-targets.htm. Cyber attacks are rated by the FBI as a threat second only to nuclear war and weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, computers are also an essential element in nuclear security and we hear daily of clever intrusions into protected systems. Those intrusions are the ones we hear about; discovered intrusions into our most sensitive systems would certainly be kept from the public domain if at all possible. And most of the ones we hear about are by outsiders. Computerized security systems are inherently vulnerable to creative, sophisticated approaches, all the more so if an insider is involved.- There are numerous cases where highly trusted individuals -- Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames come to mind - turned against their agencies because of greed, sex, anger or ideology. The United States has an extensive Personnel Reliability Program, but the standards in other countries are unclear. These systems are also designed and run by humans; eventual failures are inevitable.No amount of targeting can protect against this insider threat. And, in fact, the more targeting, the worse the insider threat because this means more systems, larger facilities, more people. And depending on the circumstances, an insider action could be mistakenly evaluated as an intended action, sparking a nuclear conflict.No Neg Fiat PredictabilityThey could always claim unlimited fiat to justify any number of abusive counterplans, exploding our research burden. Predictability is key to fair division of ground, clash and fairness.Education - Allowing neg fiat takes away from a plan-based debate and undermines policy education.

2AC Environment DA Empirics disprove biodiversity loss impacts - their authors are hystericsCampbell 11 Hank Campbell is the creator of Science 2.0, a community of research professors, post-docs, science book authors and Nobel laureates collaborating over scientific projects. "I Wouldn't Worry About The Latest Mass Extinction Scare," Science 2.0, March 8, http://www.science20.com/science_20/i_wouldnt_worry_about_latest_mass_extinction_scare-76989You've seen it everywhere by now - Earth's sixth mass extinction: Is it almost here? and other articles discussing an article in Nature (471, 5157 doi:10.1038/nature09678) claiming the end of the world is nigh. Hey, I like to live in important times. So do most people. And something so important it has only happened 5 times in 540 million years, well that is really special. But is it real? Anthony Barnosky, integrative biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and first author of the paper, claims that if currently threatened species, those officially classed as critically endangered, endangered, and vulnerable, actually went extinct, and that rate of extinction continued, the sixth mass extinction could arrive in 3-22 centuries. Wait, what?? That's a lot of helping verbs confusing what should be a fairly clear issue, if it were clear. If you know anything about species and extinction, you have already read one paragraph of my overview and seen the flaws in their model. Taking a few extinct mammal species that we know about and then extrapolating that out to be extinction hysteria right now if we don't do something about global warming is not good science. Worse, an integrative biologist is saying evolution does not happen. Polar bears did not exist forever, they came into existence 150,000 years ago - because of the Ice Age. Greenpeace co-founder and ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore told a global warming skepticism site, I quit my life-long subscription to National Geographic when they published a similar 'sixth mass extinction' article in February 1999. This [latest journal] Nature article just re-hashes this theme and "The fact that the study did make it through peer-review indicates that the peer review process has become corrupted. Well, how did it make it through peer review? Read this bizarre justification of their methodology; "If you look only at the critically endangered mammals--those where the risk of extinction is at least 50 percent within three of their generations--and assume that their time will run out and they will be extinct in 1,000 years, that puts us clearly outside any range of normal and tells us that we are moving into the mass extinction realm." Well, greater extinctions occurred when Europeans visited the Americas and in a much shorter time. And since we don't know how many species there are now, or have ever been, if someone makes a model and claims tens of thousands of species are going extinct today, that sets off cultural alarms. It's not science, though. If only 1% of species have gone extinct in the groups we really know much about, that is hardly a time for panic, especially if some 99 percent of all species that have ever existed we don't know anything about because they...went extinct. And we did not. It won't keep some researchers, and the mass media, from pushing the panic button. Co-author Charles Marshall, also an integrative biologist at UC-Berkeley wants to keep the panic button fully engaged by emphasizing that the small number of recorded extinctions to date does not mean we are not in a crisis. "Just because the magnitude is low compared to the biggest mass extinctions we've seen in half a billion years doesn't mean they aren't significant." It's a double negative, bad logic and questionable science, though. Oceans declining nowA. Warming collapsing ocean ecosystems nowShah 14 (Anup, writer for Global Issues, Climate Change Affects Biodiversity, http://www.globalissues.org/article/172/climate-change-affects-biodiversity, 1/19/14)The link between climate change and biodiversity has long been established. Although throughout Earths history the climate has always changed with ecosystems and species coming and going, rapid climate change affects ecosystems and species ability to adapt and so biodiversity loss increases. From a human perspective, the rapid climate change and accelerating biodiversity loss risks human security (e.g. a major change in the food chain upon which we depend, water sources may change, recede or disappear, medicines and other resources we rely on may be harder to obtain as the plants and forna they are derived from may reduce or disappear, etc.). The UNs Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, in May 2010, summarized some concerns that climate change will have on ecosystems: Climate change is already having an impact on biodiversity, and is projected to become a progressively more significant threat in the coming decades. Loss of Arctic sea ice threatens biodiversity across an entire biome and beyond. The related pressure of ocean acidification, resulting from higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is also already being observed. Ecosystems are already showing negative impacts under current levels of climate change which is modest compared to future projected changes. In addition to warming temperatures, more frequent extreme weather events and changing patterns of rainfall and drought can be expected to have significant impacts on biodiversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010, p.56 Some species may benefit from climate change (including, from a human perspective, an increases in diseases and pests) but the rapid nature of the change suggests that most species will not find it as beneficial as most will not be able to adapt.B. WhalingCOLLINS 14 (Katie, writer for Wired Science, Whales are the engineers of our ocean ecosystems, http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/03/whales-ecosystem-engineers, 7/3/14)Thanks to marine biologists around the world we now know that the gentle giants of our oceans have a powerful and positive impact on our underwater ecosystems. It has long been presumed that whales are so rare that their effect on our oceans is negligible. Not so, according to new research published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, which has taken into account several decades of whale-related data and found that their influence can be seen in the global carbon storage and the health of commercial fisheries. In the past fishermen have often taken taken the view that whales, which after all have massive metabolic demands, are their competition. It turns out, however, that a prevalence of whales actually encourages the development of more robust fisheries. It's estimated that the dramatic decline in whale numbers, primarily due to industrial whaling, has seen their numbers decline between 66 and 90 percent, but there are signs of recovery, which could well have a dramatically positive impact on the health of ocean ecosystems overall. "Future changes in the structure and function of the world's oceans can be expected with the restoration of great whale population," write the researchers in the study's abstract.C. Declining fish sizeRietta 14 (commentator at Pucci Foods ocean blog citing a recent study, conducted by fisheries scientists with the University of Aberdeen, Rising Ocean Temperatures: Smaller Fish Will Impact Fisheries and Ecosystems Unless Humans Learn to Adapt, http://puccifoods.com/pucciseafood-new/blog/ocean-temperatures-rise-smaller-fish-will-impact-fisheries-ecosystems-unless-humans-learn-adapt/, 3/3/14)There may be serious negative effects on entire ecosystems that come with decreasing fish size. Everything in the ocean food web is connected if fish on a lower trophic level become smaller, they will naturally yield fewer nutrients for organisms higher up on the energy chain. These animals could be predatory fish or sharks that are already suffering from the same depleted oxygen levels, or marine mammals that need to sustain massive amounts of energy to survive. They will be compelled to eat more of the smaller fish lending to a decline in population or switch their food source to something else. Ripple effects could be seen far and wide in many different ocean ecosystems. Organisms have an amazing ability to adapt and evolve to survive. But much more time is needed to keep things in balance. These fish are being forced to adapt too quickly to changing conditions entire ecosystems need at least thousands of years to properly evolve. Right now human activity is forcing monumental changes over a span of decades.Offshore drilling helps environmentAllen 09 Bruce Allen is co-founder of SOS California, an environmental and energy non-profit (Bruce, November 30, 2009, How Offshore Oil and Gas Production Benefits the Economy and the Environment, Heritage, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/11/how-offshore-oil-and-gas-production-benefits-the-economy-and-the-environment) (Sood) Drilling restrictions in general are imposed due to environmental concerns, despite the fact that offshore environmental damage has been greatly reduced by technologies that minimize the risk of oil spills and other hazards to the environment. In fact, offshore oil production has lowered the amount of oil released into the ocean by reducing natural seepage of oil, especially in areas with active offshore oil seeps, such as California's Santa Barbara coast. Natural hydrocarbon seeps have historically been used to locate the world's usable sources of oil and tar. Papers published by British Petroleum in the early 1990s[1] show that over 75 percent of the world's oil basins contain surface oil seeps. Most seeps emit small volumes of oil and gas that do not significantly deplete hydrocarbon reservoirs over the short term, but can add up to significant depletion of oil and gas over the longer term. The knowledge that surface seepage has a direct link to subsurface oil and gas accumulations is not new and has been the impetus for many of the world's early major oil and gas discoveries by pioneers of oil production -- as far back as ancient China, and more recently the 1860s in Pennsylvania and the 1890s in Azerbaijan. Natural seeps were the impetus for early exploration of oil in Iran and Iraq in the early 1900s. Natural hydrocarbon seeps continue to be an important indicator of economic oil and gas resources. The high cost of deep-water offshore oil and gas exploration has made the identification of hydrocarbon seeps an important consideration in oil-exploration risk-reduction methods.[2] Natural Seeps: The Largest Source of U.S. Marine Hydrocarbon Pollution Natural hydrocarbon seeps generally result from pressurized hydrocarbon reservoirs that force oil and gas up through fissures to the earth's surface either on land or the seabed floor where the hydrocarbons escape in the form of oil, tar, and methane-rich gases. It is a widely overlooked fact that natural hydrocarbon seeps generally have a larger impact on the marine environment than do oil and gas exploration and production. According to the National Academy of Sciences, 63 percent of hydrocarbon pollution in U.S. waters stems from natural seeps, while only 1 percent is due to offshore drilling and extraction.[3] Geologists believe that over the course of millions of years, more oil has seeped naturally into the earth's environment than currently exists in all conventional oil reservoirs combined. The Gulf of Mexico, for instance, is a major U.S. offshore oil and gas producing region where the environmental impact of natural hydrocarbon seepage appears to far exceed the environmental impact of accidental oil releases due to commercial extraction and transportation.[4] Onshore hydrocarbon seeps are also pervasive in many areas of the world, and are a source of contamination for many streambeds and rivers. The Santa Susanna Mountains in California are estimated to contain 22,000 active oil seeps that are associated with significant streambed contamination.[5] One of the most studied offshore oil and gas seep regions over the last 40 years is the Santa Barbara coast of California, which has the world's second most prolific oil seepage areas, extending for about 80 miles along the coastline.[6] The offshore Santa Barbara oil seepage zones result in about 70,000 barrels per year of oil and tar seepage into the Pacific, much of which washes up on California beaches.[7] Every four years, the amount of offshore Santa Barbara oil seepage exceeds the 240,000 barrels that spilled from the Exxon Valdez in 1989. By comparison, according to the U.S. Minerals and Management Service, the total amount of oil spilled in California coastal waters due to offshore oil production since 1970 has been less than 870 barrels.[8] Far more birds and wildlife have been killed in the last 40 years by California's offshore oil seepage than by all previous California offshore oil production spills combined, including the 1969 spill.[9] Seeps are also one of the world's largest methane gas emission sources,[10] and are a major source of air pollution in Santa Barbara County.[11] These coastal California seeps release oil and tar that washes ashore along nearly half the coastline of California, with the highest concentrations in Santa Barbara County. In the winter, the Davidson current washes seep oil and tar ashore as far north as the beaches of Santa Cruz and San Francisco.[12] The California Department of Fish Game often receives public calls reporting a possible oil spill on California central coast beaches, which is invariably determined to be natural seepage. The California Department of Fish Game requires that seep oil and tar collected on California beaches be treated as hazardous waste, the same as for industrial oil spills. Offshore Production: Significant Reductions in Oil Pollution on California Beaches One of the side affects of offshore oil production has been the reduction of oil and gas seepage due to decreases in subsea oil-reservoir pressure. Seep oil is chemically the same as commercially extracted oil, although the seep oil and tar have often undergone partial oxidation by the time they move into the water or onshore. The seepage reductions due to offshore oil and gas extraction have, in some cases, resulted in significant reductions in natural oil and gas seep pollution over the last 40 years.[13] There are also anecdotal observations and research indicating that oil production around the world is responsible for ongoing reductions in hydrocarbon seepage pollution.[14] Ironically, the decreased oil and gas reservoir pressure due to ongoing "legacy" offshore oil and gas production (which continued even after the state-wide offshore moratorium was imposed) near the site of the famous 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill is resulting in reductions in California's coastal seepage pollution. California beaches have become significantly cleaner over the last 50 years due to offshore oil and gas production.a. Fisheries NOAA 14 [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, citing scientists from Stanford University as well as experts from the NOAA, Heart failure in fish exposed to oil spills, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, February 2014, http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/news/features/heart_failure/index.cfm, 07/07/14] (Sood)Think of an oil spill, and images of fouled beaches and oil-soaked seabirds come to mind. But there are less visible effects as well. For instance, even low levels of oil pollution can damage the developing hearts of fish embryos and larvae, reducing the likelihood that those fish will survive. Scientists have known of this effect for some time, but the underlying mechanism has remained elusive. Recently, researchers from NOAA Fisheries partnered with a team from Stanford University to discover how oil-derived chemicals disrupt the normal functioning of the heart muscle cells of fish. In an article in the February 14 issue of Science, they describe how polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs a class of compounds prevalent in oil can disrupt cardiac function in young bluefin and yellowfin tuna by blocking ion channels in their heart muscle cells. The new findings are part of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment conducted by NOAA and other federal and state trustee agencies following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. That spill occurred across a large region where the Western stock of Atlantic bluefin tuna spawn, raising the possibility that the eggs and larvae of this valuable species were exposed to crude oil. Natural Resource Damage Assessments are used to determine liabilities after a spill and to help develop restoration plans. "We've known that oil causes problems with the hearts of developing fish based on research following the Exxon Valdez oil spill," said Nat Scholz, one of the authors of the paper and the leader of the Ecotoxicology Program at NOAA's Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle. "Now that we better understand the precise mechanism, we can develop more subtle and sensitive indicators of cardiac stress in fish embryos and larvae and more accurately assess the impact of pollution on our natural resources," Scholz said. Oil Compounds Block Ion Channels in Cardiac Muscle Cells With each heartbeat, countless cardiac muscle cells are synchronized so that their individual contractions add up to the coordinated pumping action of the heart. Near the end of each contraction cycle, positively charged potassium ions flow out of the muscle cell through ion channels in the cell membrane, priming the cell for the next cycle. This new research demonstrates that PAHs can block potassium ion channels in the heart cells of tunas. They can also disrupt calcium ion cycling within isolated muscle cells. Together, these effects are thought to underlie the slowed or irregular heartbeats observed in fish embryos exposed to crude oil. "When we see these kinds of acute effects at the cardiac cell level," said Barbara Block, who led the team of Stanford University scientists working on this study, "it is not surprising that chronic exposure to oil from spills such as Deepwater Horizon can lead to long-term problems in fish hearts." The study notes that, because the structure of ion channels is similar in the heart muscle cells of many species, related disruptions might occur in the hearts of other vertebrates. To demonstrate the effect of PAHs on the cardiac cells of tuna, scientists had to measure the flow of electrical current across the membranes of individual cells. "That requires some very specialized skills and equipment," said John Incardona, another NOAA scientist and a coauthor of the study. This experimental capacity was provided by the Tuna Research and Conservation Center, jointly operated by Stanford University and the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Scientists there measured the electrical properties of individual heart muscle cells using a "patch clamp" technique, which involves micron-scale glass electrodes. The Stanford scientists provided expertise in tuna husbandry, cardiac physiology, single-cell electrophysiology, and optical imaging. NOAA's Ecotoxicology Program provided expertise in designing oil exposure studies, and in understanding the effects of oil on whole fish embryos and larvae. The NOAA group also developed new methods for preparing environmentally realistic oil mixtures for use in the lab. b. Coral Reefs Haapkyl, Ramade, and Salvat 6 [Jessica, Franois, and Bernard, Jessica works at Laboratoire de Biologie Marine and is a professor of Coral Reefs at lEcole Pratique des Hautes Etudes and at lUniversit de Perpignan, Franois works at Laboratoire Ecologie and teaches Systematic Evolution at lUniversit de Paris-Sud, Bernard is a professor at lUniversit de Perpignan, OIL PRODUCTION ON CORAL REEFS: A REVIEW OF THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE AND MANAGEMENT NEEDS, Vie et Millieu - Life and Environment, 10/26/06, www.obs-banyuls.fr, 07/07/14]Many laboratory studies exist on the impacts of oil on corals. Extrapolating these results to real-life oil spill scenarios is complicated by the various exposures to different types of oil. Because only a fraction of the oil mixes directly into the water, actual toxicity levels can be assumed to be much lower than reported in many studies. During actual oil spills, oil is most concentrated at the very beginning of a spill and concentrations rapidly decline. When trying to estimate real-life exposures, it is important to carefully evaluate the methods used when extrapolating results from laboratory studies (NOAA 2001). Table IV summarizes the effects of oil on corals in laboratory studies and the associated references. Growth Several studies suggest that exposure to hydrocarbons affects coral growth especially by decreasing calcium deposition into the polyps exoskeleton (Dodge et al. 1984). Guzmn et al. (1994) found an overall slow-down of coral growth after the Bahia Las Minas oil spill in Panama. Histopathological effects Peters et al. (1981) exposed the Caribbean coral Manicina areolata to No. 2 fuel oil (Chevron/Pascagoula, gravity, API = 33-39) for three months (dosage 10 ml min-1). The expected concentrations were 0.1 ppm and 0.5 ppm. Although corals remained alive, evidence of pathological responses were found which included impaired development of reproductive tissues, degeneration and loss of symbiotic zooxanthellae, and atrophy of mucous secretory cells and muscle bundles. Corals examined after two, four and six weeks after the start of the experiment showed an extensive increase in mucous secretory cell activity. This was indicated by a proliferation of mucous secretory cells as well as an increase in size of these cells in the epidermis and mesenteries. Many cells had increased to such an extent that their cell walls were broken and huge vacuoles were formed. Many mucous secretory cells were also noted in the tips of the mesenterial filaments, where they are not usually present. Zooxanthellae were not only lost from the gastrodermis, but also from the mesenteries. Harrison et al. (1990) observed a dramatic decrease in zooxanthellae concentrations and a thinning of the tissue of Acropora formosa branches after 24 h of exposure to water accommodated fractions (WAF) of marine fuel oil. The response of the coral was similar in both 5 and 10 ppm treatments. Reimer (1975) observed tissue rupture and flaking off of tissue especially at the edges of the Pocillopora dami-cornis colonies after 18, 55, 76 and 210 h exposure to Marine Diesel and Bunker-C oils. A massive extrusion of zooxanthellae was observed in P. damicornis when exposed to Marine Diesel. This led to bleaching, which occurred within 5-13 days of exposure to oil, and it affected mostly the lower side of the colonies. Pocillopora damicornis showed tissue death sooner than all other species investigated, it was affected more by longer exposures than by shorter ones and is more susceptible to tissue damage and bleaching by Marine Diesel than by Bunker-C. Zooxanthellae expulsion was also observed in colonies of Acropora formosa exposed to hydrocarbon components originated from lubricating oils. A decrease of the maximum quantic photosynthetic efficiency (Fv / Fm) occurred at concentrations ranging from 150 g.l - 1 and over (Mercurio et al. 2004). Chemoreception, feeding response and behaviour Crude-oil products may interfere with chemically mediated behaviors by blocking the taste receptors of marine organisms or by mimicking natural stimuli and thus eliciting false responses (Blumer et al. 1971). Cohen et al. (1977) exposed the soft coral Heteroxenia fuscescens to different concentrations of Iranian crude oil in static bioassays (1-30 ml - 1). The initial effect of crude oil (even in the lowest concentration) was a reduction in pulsation rate to less than 50% of the rate in untreated colonies. At concentrations of 10 ml - 1 and greater, pulsation stopped almost completely within 72 h. After 17 days of recovery, the pulsation rate of treated colonies was 20-30% lower and less regular than in control colonies. In large tanks (1500 l, 1-2 m deep) with a continuous flow of seawater (oil concentration of 10 ml-1), a similar reduction in pulsation rate was recorded. Some scleractinian and zoantharian corals have been reported to respond to crude-oil pollution by mouth opening (Reimer 1975, Loya & Rinkevich 1979). Reimer (1975) described abnormal feeding reactions in four scleractinian corals (Pocillopora damicornis, Pavona gigantea, Psammocora stellata and Porites furcata) elicited by Marine Diesel and Bunker-C oils floating over the surface water covering the corals. P. damicornis was treated with 1 ml of Marine Diesel in a 250-ml finger bowl and was shown to exhibit exaggerated mouth opening which lasted up to 17 days. Control colonies kept their mouths closed throughout 20 d of observation. Mouth opening responses in Pavona gigantea, Psammocora stellata and Porites sp. were sustained for much longer periods than normal after exposure to Marine Diesel. Oil-sediment rejection patterns in corals The sediment rejection behaviour pattern of corals displays maximum and minimum rates dependent on the size and density of the oil-sediment particles. Viscosity of the oil determines the size of the oil-sediment particles (Bak & Elgershuizen 1976). Different rejection patterns of sand-oil combinations by various coral species were tested by Bak & Elgershuizen (1976). The oil used in the experiment was a combination of Nigerian, Forcados and Tia Juana Pesado crude oils (see Table I for details), as well as Forcados long residue and Lagomar short residue. Small drops of these oils were introduced in the grastrovascular cavity of the corals. The viscosity of these oils increased in this sequence at the temperature of the experiments (26 to 28C) (Bak & Elgershuizen 1976). No evidence of adsorption of oil to living coral tissue was found: if drops were introduced into the gastrovascular cavity they were invariably extruded through the stomodaeum. When oil drops arrived on the peristome they were removed by ciliary currents and by tentacular and polypal movements (Bak & Elgershuizen 1976). The reaction of corals to sediment is intimately linked to the specific morphology of the coral colonies affected. Long, meandroid valleys are more advantageous than short, reticulate valleys. Calical morphology also affects the mobility of polyps. Agaricia agaricites is an example of a species depending on strong ciliary currents for sediment rejection. Acropora palmata and Porites asteroides are, without help of wave action or currents, unable to remove particles of any size (Bak & Elgershuizen 1976). Mucus expulsion and coral reef food-web Mucus secretion by reef corals as a protective mechanism in response to external perturbations is well known. Johannes et al. (1972) found that corals with large and fleshy polyps with abundant mucus cleaned themselves in 1 day after colony submersion in clean water. Harrison e t a l . (1990) observed massive amounts of mucus discharging from branches of Acropora formosa when exposed to 5 and 10 ppm of marine fuel oil. Under normal conditions, mucus loss may be a major pathway of energy loss. Thus, 40% of the primary production of a species of Acropora is rapidly lost as mucus (Loya & Rinkevich 1980). In stressed corals this loss might constitute an enormous energy drain, which could lead to a deterioration in general coral health. Knap et al. (1982) measured the uptake and the depuration of (9-14C) phenanthrene (Solbakken et al. 1979) in individual colonies of the brain coral Diploria strigosa. After 10 days, a 4000 times higher concentration of phenanthrene was found in the tissue than in the mucus. It was concluded that the uptake of (9-14C) phenanthrene by D. strigosa is similar to that of other invertebrates (Palmork & Solbakken 1980, 1981). The very low concentration of radioactivity in the mucus after 10 days may be due to a very high turnover rate of mucus by the coral or may be due to the chemical nature of the mucus (Ducklow & Mitchell 1979), and its inability to sorp petroleum hydrocarbons to any great extent. Knap et al. (1982) stated that the slow depuration rates exhibited by Diploria strigosa indicate that these organisms may prove to be useful bio-indicators of marine pollution incidents in coral reef areas. Particulate mucus has been shown to be consumed by a large variety of coral-reef organisms (Johannes 1967, Knudsen 1967, Benson & Muscatine 1974, Richman e t a l . 1975, Lewis 1978). Although there is no conclusive evidence of possible transfer of oil derivatives through the reef food chain, which originates from coral mucus, this remains one possible route, as demonstrated in other o rganisms, such as clams (Stainken 1975). Another way is through direct feeding on coral tissue, which might contain accumulated hydrocarbons. Effects of bacteria The relationship between mucus production and bacterial growth was studied on colonies of Platygyraspp, which was exposed to crude oil (oil type not specified) (Mitchell & Chet 1975). It was concluded that crude oil alone fails to kill coral at concentrations of 100 ppm but the role of the bacteria which developed under such stress conditions was demonstrated. Three groups of micro-organisms were suggested to be responsible for the observed coral death: predatory bacteria, Desulfovibrio and Beggiatoa. A significant increase in mucus-bacteria populations and a significantly higher diversity of bacterial types in clean coral-mucus than in oil-exposed mucus were indicated by Ducklow (1977) and Ducklow & Mitchell (1979). After the oil spill in Panama in 1986, bleached areas on corals were surrounded by a black halo characteristic of bacterial infection (Antonius 1981). Garrett & Ducklow (1975) suggested that naturally occurring diseases in corals, e.g. the black band disease (BBD), may result from stress conditions such as oil pollution. Recent evidence of the human impact on the occurrence of BBD has been suggested by Littler & Littler (1996) and Friaz-Lopez et al. (2002). Reproduction Rinkevich & Loya (1979) investigated the sub-lethal, detrimental effects of Iranian crude oil on Stylophora pistillata in a long-term laboratory experiment. The experiment consisted of four 1500-1 capacity tanks with continuous s flow of sea water; every week 2 of these tanks were polluted by Iranian crude oil (3ml - l sea water) for 24 h. L a rge and mature colonies of S. pistillata were cut into halves, at the beginning of the reproductive period; one half was placed in a polluted tank, the other in a clean tank. After 2 months, a significant decrease in the number of female gonads per polyp was recorded in 75% of the polluted halves. This experiment showed that chronic oil pollution damages the reproductive system of scleractinian corals, a fact that had already been shown in the field by the same authors (Rinkevich & Loya 1977). Harrison (1994) observed total sterilization of gametes of A c ropora tenuis occurring at a concentration of 0.002 mgL-1 of heavy fuel oil. Mercurio et al. (2004) stated that 150 mgL - 1 of lubricating oil generated a 64% decrease in the fecundity of gametes of Acropora microphtalma in comparison to the control. Larval metamorphosis and recruitment Field documentation (Loya 1976) combined with laboratory experiments (Rinkevich & Loya 1979) recorded that chronic oil pollution inhibits successful settlement of coral planulae. According to Rinkevich & Loya (1979), the shedding of larvae in S. pistillata is immediate in the presence of low concentrations of the water soluble fraction of Iranian crude oil, during day or night. Most larvae are prematurely released (planulae without complete mesenteries or with 2-4 pairs of complete mesenteries). The chances of survival of such planulae are very low, due to the high predation pressure existing in the reef from a wide variety of organisms. Chia (1973) demonstrated that species specificity, in terms of survival of the larvae in oil-polluted water, may be related to size; larger larvae are expected to survive longer because they are more robust. Larval extrusion due to sublethal concentrations of crude oil (10 ml l - 1) was also reported in the soft coral Heteroxenia fuscescens after 72 h of exposure (Cohen et al. 1977). Since planulae extrusion occurs during an oil spill, chances of survival and successful larval settlement are very low. Gametes of most spawning species tend to rise to the surface just after spawning (Harrison et al. 1984) where they are more likely to encounter oil, and their larvae spend one to several weeks in the plankton before attaining competence to settle (Fadlallah 1983, Jackson 1986). Brooding species release planulae throughout the year (Guzmn 1991). Serious impacts on coral recruitment would therefore follow in the case of a simultaneous spill and coral spawning. Negri & Heyward (2000) reported the effects of the water accommodated fraction (WAF) of crude oil, (specific gravity of 0.93 (19.4 API), kinematic viscosity of 128 cSt at 23C, pour point -39C and flash point 87.0C) and production formation water (PFW) on fertilization and larval metamorphosis of Acropora millepora. At 20% v / v, PFW fertilization was inhibited by 25%. This concentration was equivalent to 0.0721 mg l - l of total hydro-carbons (THC). In contrast, larval metamorphosis was more sensitive to this effluent, with 98% metamorphosis inhibited at the same concentration. Crude oil WAF did not inhibit fertilization of gametes until dispersant was introduced. Crude oil inhibited metamorphosis at 0.0824 mg l-1 THC. Kushmaro et al. (1997) used T PA (12-tetra-decanoyl-phorbol-13-acetate) to induce metamorphosis of planulae of the soft coral Heteroxenia fuscescens. In the absence of crude oil (obtained from Haifa refineries, Israel, density: 0.8497 g/ml), TPA induced metamorphosis in 97% of these planulae. Only 50% of the planulae grown in experimental vessels with crude oil at a concentration of 0.1 ppm covering the bottom and walls of the vessels underwent metamorphosis when triggered by T PA. Of those planulae exposed to 100 ppm of the pollutant only 3% metamorphosed after being induced by T PA. In addition, after metamorphosis there was an increase in the number of deformed primary polyps compared to the control. The deformed polyps were elongated and had short non pinnate tentacles. Planulae also settled less frequently on the oil-covered surfaces. Thus, on the reef, even in the presence of low concentrations of crude oil, a decrease in both viability and successful settlement of coral planulae might occur following an oil spill. Bioaccumulation According to Ramade & Roche (2006), the high li