WHAM Natural Gas DA

SDI 2008 1
WHAM! Natural Gas DA
Natural Gas DA Index

Natural Gas DA Index................................................1
1NC Natural Gas DA (1/3).........................................3
1NC Natural Gas DA (2/3).........................................4
1NC Natural Gas DA (3/3).........................................5
Ext. Demand High......................................................6
Brink...........................................................................7
Link- General (1/2)....................................................8
Link- General (2/2)....................................................9
Link- Solar...............................................................10
Link- RPS.................................................................11
Link- Wind...............................................................12
Link- Biofuels..........................................................13
Link- Nuclear Power (1/2).......................................14
Link- Nuclear Power (2/2).......................................15
Ext. US Key to Qatar...............................................16
Ext. LNG Key to US/Qatar......................................17
Heg ! 2NC................................................................18
Ext. Heg Internal Link.............................................19
Middle East War !....................................................20
Ext. Middle East War Internal Link.........................21
AT: Qatar Corrupt/Econ not liberalized...................22
AT: Domestic Reserves Solve..................................23
AT: Offshore Drilling Solves...................................24
AT: Canada Solves...................................................25
US-Q atar Relations Strong......................................26
Dependence ! 2NC...................................................27
Econ ! 2NC...............................................................28
AT: Impact Turns......................................................29
AT: Natural Gas Unsafe...........................................30
AT: Terrorism Turn...................................................31
AT: Hurst Turns........................................................32
AT: Iran LNG...........................................................33
Natural Gas Solves the Aff Better- Warming (1/2). .34
Natural Gas Solves the Aff Better- Warming (2/2). .35
No Link- No Tradeoff..............................................36
No Link- Alt Cause..................................................37
SDI 2008 2
Aff ! T/- Economy Module......................................38

Ext. Economy ! T/ Internal Link..............................39
Aff ! T/- Terrorism Module......................................40
Ext. Terrorism ! T/ Internal Link (1/2).....................41
Ext. Terrorism ! T/ Internal Link (2/2).....................42
Aff ! T/ Safety..........................................................43
Aff ! T/- Environment Module.................................44
Ext. Environment ! T/ Internal Link........................45
Aff AT: Levene.........................................................46
AT: The Coastguard can Solve.................................47
SDI 2008 3
1NC Natural Gas DA (1/3)

A. US demand for natural gas is high and increasing causing higher prices
The Associated Press State & Local Wire, Newswire, June 3, 2008, lexis, Natural gas reps. tell Mo.
regulators demand causing spikes, nna
Natural gas and utility industry representatives tell regulators increasing demand could fuel higher
energy prices. Chris McGill with the American Gas Association says there are now two peak periods
for natural gas demand. There's the traditional winter heating season, and one in summer because
more electrical plants use natural gas. Besides demand, the trade groups point to weaker U.S. currency,
increasing foreign competition for liquefied natural gas and hurricanes as contributors for higher
prices. The Public Service Commission last week allowed three utilities to charge an extra $100 to
$200 for natural gas. The bump can be adjusted as gas prices change, and it factors only market prices and
doesn't account for profits.
B. This demand is met by increasing imports of LNG for Qatar- the US is the primary
market for Qatar
The Hindustan Times“Qatar aims to raise LNG output to 77 million tons in two years,” 4-9-2008, Proquest
Nicosia, April 9 -- Qatar has aimed to raise production of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) from 31 million
tons a year to 77 million tons a year by 2010, the country's Minister of State for Energy and Industry
Affairs, Dr. Mohammed bin Saleh Al Sada, told the 16th Annual Middle East Petroleum and Gas Conference
in Doha. Qatar is already the biggest LNG exporter in the world and with a number of huge projects
that will cost billions of dollars, mainly the two LNG processing trains - where gas is liquefied - it will
add by the end of the year another 8 million tons to its LNG output. Recently, a four billion dollars deal
to build natural gas processing facilities in Qatar was reached between Qatar Liquefied Gas Co. and Japan's
Chiyoda. The two companies agreed to build two LNG processing trains to the Qatargas-3 and Qatargas-4
projects in the Ras Laffan Industrial city. The United States will be a primary market for the gas
produced by the new units. America will cover 30 per cent of its total LNG needs from Qatar. As from
next year, it will buy more than 15 million tons of LNG a year from Qatar. The country's first markets
were Japan and Korea. India followed soon. The country's Oil Minister Abdullah bin Hamad Al Attiyah told
journalists that Qatar's investment in the hydrocarbon sector would exceed 60 billion dollars.
C. Renewable energy reduces natural gas demand from Qatar

Union of Concerned Scientists, 8/27/07, “Clean Energy”, AB,
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/the-renewable-electricity-standard.html#6
Much of the U.S. energy system—power plants, dams, refineries, pipelines, tankers, and the electricity
transmission grid—presents significant safety and security risks. Renewable energy facilities are small,
geographically dispersed, and do not require transporting or storing radioactive or combustible materials.
Increasing renewable energy would reduce the number of vulnerable facilities over time. Renewable
energy can also reduce the need to expand imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG imports from
non-NAFTA countries, including some OPEC members—Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, and Qatar
—are projected to grow from less than 1 percent of gas supply today to up to 12 percent by 2010.
Renewable fuels can also displace oil. Among the experts calling for a federal RES to increase energy
security are James Woolsey, former head of the CIA, Robert McFarland, former national security advisor to
President Reagan, and Admiral Thomas Moorer, former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
SDI 2008 4

D. US LNG imports key to maintaining US-Qatar relations.
Michael Klare – professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, 2006 The Nation, “The
Geopolitics of Natural Gas,” 1-23-2006, www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Geopolitics_NaturalGas.html) //
JMP
The rising worldwide demand for gas is also influencing relations between the major consuming
nations and their principal suppliers. A key factor in the geopolitics of natural gas is the heavy concentration of reserves in a
relatively small number of producing countries. All told, the top ten gas producers harbor 76 percent of the world's proven reserves,
while the top five-Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates-hold nearly 67 percent. This means, of course, that
these countries are in a very strong position to control the global flow of gas and to influence market forces.Russia, which owns 26.7
percent of the world's proven gas supplies (compared with 2.9 percent for the United States), will play a dominant role in the energy
field for many decades to come. Although the United States and Russia produced similar amounts of gas in 2004-05 (543 billion and 589
billion cubic meters, respectively), America's output was about 10 percent of its total reserves while Russia's output was only 1 percent.
Russia already supplies a large share of Europe's natural gas, and when new pipelines are constructed, it will be capable of supplying
vast amounts to China, Korea and Japan-even the United States, eventually. Until now, the Russians have been very careful to avoid
giving the impression that they intend to exploit their dominant position in Europe for political advantage. Nevertheless, Moscow has
been accused of engaging in such practices in the past: In December 2000, for example, it temporarily suspended gas deliveries to
Georgia in a move perceived by many Georgians as punishment for the failure of its leaders, notably then-President Eduard
Shevardnadze, to defer to Russia on key regional issues. The current blockage of gas to Ukraine can be seen as another instance of the
same tactic. Officials of the European Union are worried about the growing role of Gazprom in the delivery of natural gas to Europe. At
present, Gazprom supplies approximately 40 percent of Europe's natural gas, and its share is likely to grow as gas fields in the North Sea
are exhausted. Fearing that Moscow may someday exploit its role as Europe's major gas supplier to wring political concessions from its
customers, EU officials have called for greater diversity in the procurement of energy-so far, to little avail. Iran is also a major producer
of natural gas. Under increasing diplomatic pressure from the Bush Administration to halt its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons,
Tehran has been eager to establish joint production and export projects with friendly nations in Europe and Asia. In the past two years
alone, it has signed several multibillion-dollar deals with companies from France, Italy, Norway, Turkey, Japan and India for joint
development of offshore gas fields in the Persian Gulf and the construction of new pipelines to Europe and Asia. Capping this drive was
the signing in October 2004 of a $100 billion, twenty-five-year contract with the China National Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec)
for the joint production and export of liquefied natural gas (LNG), much of which will ultimately go to China. While all this makes
perfect commercial sense, given Iran's need for foreign partners in the management of these ambitious projects, it is safe to assume
Tehran is also seeking to increase the number of allies it can turn to in case of a showdown with the United States. Qatar has
tacked the opposite way, using its huge gas reserves to establish close ties with Washington and to
insinuate itself beneath the US defense umbrella. Under a $10 billion, twenty-five-year agreement
signed in 2003, ExxonMobil will build the world's largest LNG shipping facility in Qatar. Much of the
resulting liquid will go to the United States to be converted back into gas. This will entail the construction of new
LNG terminals at ports on the US Gulf Coast, a major undertaking. Like Qatar's, many of the world's largest deposits of natural gas are
located far from the areas where demand is greatest. The most efficient and economical way to transport gas to distant markets is by
pipeline. As a result, vast natural gas pipeline networks have been built in North America, Europe and the former Soviet Union, and
many more such conduits are under construction. These networks are easiest to construct on land or in relatively shallow, enclosed
bodies of water like the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, both of which are now traversed by gas pipelines.
SDI 2008 5

E. US/Qatar relations are key to counterterrorism efforts
Christopher Blanchard, Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs, 1/24/08 http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL31718.pdf
The U.S.Department of State has characterized Qatar’s counterterrorism support since September 11,
2001 as “significant.”41 Qatar’s Combating Terrorism Law, passed in March 2004, established
definitions of terrorism and terrorist financing and broadened the government’s power to detect and
prevent terrorist threats and to investigate and prosecute terrorists and their supporters. Qatar also
established the Qatar Authority for Charitable Activities (QACA) in March 2004 to monitor the activities
of all Qatari domestic and international charitable organizations, including prominent organizations such
as the Qatar Charitable Society and the Shaikh Eid bin Mohammed Al Thani Charitable Association. All
international financial charity transfers and project verification fall within the jurisdiction of the new QACA.
42 However, Article 24 of the law establishing the Authority allows the Emir to grant an exemption from
QACA oversight to any organization at any time. Qatar’s central bank operates a financial intelligence
unit (FIU) which monitors activity Qatar’s banking system and serves as a liaison office to similar
units in the United States and around the world.
F.Extinction
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, “Extinction!” August 26-September 1 2004 , Issue no.
705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.hml
A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and
this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no
knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for
nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to
threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game.
We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a
terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state
like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD,
proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it
fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we
are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense
of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would
proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of
world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack
succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a
conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and
losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
SDI 2008 6
Ext. Demand High

Demand for natural gas has increased and gained a more prominent role on the
international market.
Steven Gabriel, Weekly Policy Commentary, Why Natural Gas Matters in Today’s Energy and Environmental
Picture; March 10, 2008; LC
http://www.rff.org/Publications/WPC/Pages/03_10_08_Natural_Gas_Gabriel.aspx
In recent years, the environmental and economic value of natural gas has soared, making it an ever-
important fuel for power generation, industrial operations, as well as residential and commercial use.
Natural gas holds a favorable environmental position relative to coal and oil, all the more important
given the current move towards a low-carbon world. In the United States, demand for natural gas has
risen over 33 percent in the period 1986-2006, driven by a multitude of factors. In Europe, geopolitical
issues are more pronounced since almost half of the European Union's imports of gas come from Russia.
Additionally, there is now competition in both the Atlantic and Pacific basins for liquefied natural gas
(LNG) from exporting countries. The overall picture then is one of a global competition for this
important fuel source. Two other trends have emerged over the last 20 years that have helped to spur
both domestic and international natural gas consumption. The first was the enactment of regulations
geared at liberalizing gas markets. In the United States, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
required interstate pipeline companies to unbundle, or separate, their sales and transportation services
in order to promote competition and mitigate their potential market power. Similar legislative measures
were enacted in the European Union that promoted third-party access and legal splitting of gas sellers and
network operators. The second trend is the rise of liquefied natural gas trading. LNG is the liquid form of
this fuel, achieved by cooling the normally gaseous substance to about -260 degrees (Fahrenheit) and
removing certain components. By using specialized cryogenic tankers, natural gas can be moved much
more easily around the world, but this process is costly. While there is not yet a common "world gas
price" as in the case with oil, there are some very large producers. Nearly 75 percent of the world's
natural gas reserves can be found in the Middle East and Eurasia, with reserves in Russia, Iran, and
Qatar combined accounting for nearly 60 percent of this total, resulting in geopolitical market power.
For example, the influence of Russian production and control of key pipelines was felt in Ukraine and
Western Europe in the winter of 2005-2006, when Russia temporarily cut off gas to Ukraine over a price
dispute, which affected downstream Europe. In the United States, dependence on natural gas from other
countries has been rising over time. In the last 20 years, imports of natural gas as a percentage of total
consumption have risen from just over 4 percent in 1986 to almost 16 percent in 2006. Colleagues and I
have created detailed game theoretic models of market equilibria in which producers (or their marketing
arms) may withhold production in order to achieve higher profits. The resulting simulations indicate that
market power can raise natural gas prices considerably. Compared with an assumption of perfectly
competitive producers in Europe (that is, producers not having the ability to influence market prices by
withholding production), the effects of market power raise European prices by some 27 percent. This is
further exacerbated if a major supplier such as Algeria is shut down or gas from Russia is curtailed through a
transit country such as Ukraine.
Demand for natural gas is high and rising.

Diane Lindquist, staff writer, 15 Jul 2008, The San Diego Union Tribune, “A liquid diet”, Lexis Nexis, AB
Last week, when Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned that natural gas shortfalls are a
serious problem that could erode the nation's economic recovery, he also endorsed projects such as the
liquefied natural gas receiving terminals proposed for Baja California. Shrinking supplies, Greenspan
said, mean the United States must build LNG receiving terminals to create a safety valve that would
help stabilize gas prices. "Without the flexibility such facilities will impart, imbalances in supply and
demand must inevitably engender price volatility," he said. If the Mexican projects get built, they will be the
first liquefied natural gas, or LNG, receiving terminals on North America's West Coast. As such, they would
add a new dynamic to global trading of the super-cooled, ocean-borne fuel just as LNG is undergoing a
worldwide resurgence. Other developed countries, in addition to the United States, are seeing natural
gas supplies diminish. That, along with economic growth and environmental concerns about coal and
oil, is pushing greater demand for LNG.
SDI 2008 7
Brink
Now is the key time for the gas market
Global Power Report, December 21, 2006, FINANCE; Pg. 4 LC
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4157357044
&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4157357047&cisb=22_T41573570
46&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8146&docNo=1
While the 2007 outlook for the US power and natural gas industry is "generally stable," the sector
faces "escalating credit challenges" in the intermediate to long term as "capital markets will eventually turn
less accommodating," Fitch Ratings said December 18. The rating agency based its stable outlook for next
year on the fact that natural gas and wholesale power prices, while below recent highs, remain at
"elevated levels," lending favorable credit implications to many companies in the sector, particularly
merchant generators and gas gathering, processing and storage companies. Fitch, however, added that
high energy prices combined with other "rising cost elements, form a challenging environment for the
regulated gas and electric utility sector." Fitch said that while some utilities such as public power utilities,
gas distributors, and most traditionally regulated integrated investor-owned electric utilities are better
positioned to recover rising costs, other IOUs face "a more contentious regulatory and political
environment." In the intermediate or longer term, Fitch said it expects the power and gas sector will
eventually face escalating credit challenges. "Capital market conditions that are currently positive for
this sector will eventually turn less accommodating. Companies that form growth plans and financial
structures without considering the potential for a shift in the capital market environment or downturn in
valuations can run into financial problems down the road," Fitch said, adding that "easy and liberal financing
has accelerated merger and acquisition activity, and it would be unsurprising to witness some fallout from the
lofty prices being paid for power and gas assets and/or companies." In addition, Fitch cautioned there is "a
possibility that sustained higher prices for gas and electric power and public programs for demand
management will eventually lead to reduced consumption, at the same time that costly new facilities
come online."
SDI 2008 8
Link- General (1/2)

Energy diversification reduces demand of natural gas
Ryan Wiser, scientists and Policy Group at Lawrence, 2005 "Easing the Natural Gas Crisis: Reducing Natural
Gas Prices Through Electricity Supply Diversificatio Testimony Prepared for a Hearing on Power Generation Resource
Incentives & Diversity Standards" Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
With the recent run-up in natural gas prices, and the expected continuation of volatile and high prices for at
least the mid-term future, a growing number of voices are calling for increased diversification of electricity
supplies. Such diversification holds the prospect of directly reducing our dependence on a fuel whose
costs are highly uncertain, thereby hedging the risk of natural gas price volatility and escalation. In
addition, as I will describe in a moment, by reducing natural gas demand, increased diversification away
from gas-fired generation can indirectly suppress natural gas prices.
Renewable Energy will have a large impact on natural gas

UCS 05 (Union of Concerned Scientists, "Renewable Energy Can Help Ease Natural Gas Crunch", August
26,
Implementing effective energy efficiency measures can be the fastest and most cost effective approach
to balancing gas demand and supply, with renewable energy providing a critical mid-term to long-term
supplement. A recent study by the American Council for An Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
confirms that modest near-term reductions in gas and electricity consumption through efficiency
measures coupled with increased renewable energy use could significantly impact natural gas prices
and availability, while saving consumers more than $75 billion on their natural gas bills over the next five
years.4 The model used in ACEEE’s analysis also demonstrates that the near-term natural gas price response
and consumer savings from increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy could be much greater than
projected in EIA’s NEMS model.
Renewable energy will have an impact on natural gas

UCS 05 (Union of Concerned Scientists, "Renewable Energy Can Help Ease Natural Gas Crunch", August
26,
Because increased renewable energy use reduces the demand for natural gas, and creates new
competitors to traditional power plants, increasing renewable energy would reduce natural gas prices.
Achieving the 10 percent RES could reduce gas prices by 1.9 percent ($0.12 per million Btu) compared to
business as usual in 2020. A 20 percent standard could reduce natural gas prices by as much as $0.25/million
Btu, resulting in cumulative gas bill savings of $15 billion (Fig. 5) through 2025. Under current EIA
forecasts, renewable energy begins to displace new coal-fired power plants (which become
economically competitive) instead of natural gas facilities after 2020. As a result, renewable energy has
less of an impact on natural gas prices in these later years, but it continues to provide total energy bill savings
to consumers from lower electricity prices, and even greater air pollution reduction benefits.
SDI 2008 9
Link- General (2/2)

Alternative energy will reduce demand by 10%
Ryan Wiser, scientists and Policy Group at Lawrence, 2005 "Easing the Natural Gas Crisis: Reducing Natural Gas
Prices Through Electricity Supply Diversificatio Testimony Prepared for a Hearing on Power Generation Resource Incentives &
Diversity Standards" Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
The level of demand and price reduction depends in large part on the level of renewable energy and
energy efficiency deployment. Those studies that review the impact of more aggressive national
renewable energy deployment efforts have found that such efforts could reduce demand for natural
gas by as much as 3 to 4 quadrillion BTU (Quads) a year by 2020, or 10% of projected national gas
consumption, with a mean reduction across studies of approximately 2 Quads (7%). Less aggressive
levels of national deployment are found to reduce gas consumption by as much as 1.5 Quads, or 4% of total
projected demand in 2020, with a mean reduction across studies of 0.7 Quads (2%).
Energy efficiency will reduce LNG use

As shown in our full report, these studies consistently find that renewable energy and energy efficiency
deployment will reduce natural gas demand, thereby putting downward pressure on gas prices.
SDI 2008 10
Link- Solar
Solar energy reduces use of natural gas
James Mason, 12/17/07, Scientific American, “A Solar Grand Plan”, AB, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-
solar-grand-plan
The federal government would have to invest more than $400 billion over the next 40 years to complete the
2050 plan. That investment is substantial, but the payoff is greater. Solar plants consume little or no
fuel, saving billions of dollars year after year. The infrastructure would displace 300 large coal-fired
power plants and 300 more large natural gas plants and all the fuels they consume. The plan would
effectively eliminate all imported oil, fundamentally cutting U.S. trade deficits and easing political
tension in the Middle East and elsewhere. Because solar technologies are almost pollution-free, the plan
would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 1.7 billion tons a year, and another 1.9
billion tons from gasoline vehicles would be displaced by plug-in hybrids refueled by the solar power grid. In
2050 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be 62 percent below 2005 levels, putting a major brake on global
warming.
SDI 2008 11
Link- RPS
RPS would significantly reduce natural gas usage
Foster Electric Report, 9-19-2007, “EIA FINDS THAT FEDERAL 25% RPS WOULD CAUSE DRAMATIC
SHIFT AWAY FROM COAL GENERATION,” SS, Lexis.
Meeting twin 25% national renewable portfolio standards for electricity and transportation fuels by
2025 would require nearly a 13-fold increase from 2005 levels in non-hydropower renewable generation, and
cause a "dramatic shift" away from coal and natural gas generation, the U.S. Energy Information
Administration said in a report released Sept. 11. "This analysis suggests that, to comply with the twin 25-
by-25 mandates, it will be necessary for electricity and motor fuel producers to dramatically increase
their use of technologies that play a relatively small role in today's energy markets," the report said. For
instance, EIA said the 13-fold increase in renewable electricity generation from 2005 levels would be
accompanied by more than a 12-fold increase in the amount of ethanol and biodiesel needed.
RPS would remove the need for natural gas.

Jim Madden, Jim Madden is the president of Chesapeake Renewable Energy, Times Dispatch guest columnist,
1/17/2007 , “Support for RPS Legislation Is a Stand for Clean Energy”, jlk,
http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/news/news_detail.cfm?id=247
Virginia has an important choice to make, but it's a no-brainer. The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) bill
sponsored by Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple would require that all retail electric utilities in Virginia obtain
12 percent of their electricity from renewable sources -- such as wind, solar, and biomass -- by 2020. It
would also require these utilities to enact energy efficiency programs to save an additional 5 percent of
electric usage by 2020. These limits are attainable and implementing them is unlikely to increase our electric
rates. If the General Assembly passes this bill, Virginia would join 23 other states in taking a stand in support
of clean energy. Every megawatt-hour of clean energy produced removes the need to generate a
megawatt-hour of electricity from other sources, such as coal and natural gas.
More evidence
EIA Special Report, 10-11-2001, eia.doe.gov, “Fuel Market and Macroeconomic Impacts,”SS.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/epp/chapter_4.html
The imposition of new, more stringent emission caps on electricity power plants would affect coal
consumption, national and regional production, and prices. (Figure 22) In general, the revised caps and the
consequent need for introducing control technologies and other measures necessary to achieve
compliance with the caps would raise the cost of electricity from coal-fired power plants relative to those
using other fuels, encourage fuel switching, and cause the level of coal-fired generation to be reduced.
The impacts on national coal industry production levels are projected to be negative relative to the
reference case. The overall impacts on coal production depend on both the extent of the projected decline in
coal demand and the types of coal expected to be used in the future mix of coal-burning capacity. In the RPS
cases, all the nonhydroelectric renewable generation technologies are projected to increase their market share
of total generation, and the electricity generation shares of both coal and natural gas are projected to be
lower than in the reference case. The effective price premium associated with using renewable fuels declines
over time relative to nonrenewable sources, because the cost of the RPS credits that nonrenewable electricity
generators must hold increases as the renewable share target becomes more stringent. In the RPS 10% case,
the projected impacts on coal markets fall roughly midway between the results in the reference and RPS 20%
cases.
SDI 2008 12
Link- Wind
Wind trades off with natural gas
Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York
Christopher Cooper Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices Renewing America: The Case for
Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report
No. 01-07, June, 2007
A similar study conducted by the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research (VCCER) found that
renewable generators fueled by wind and landfill gases offered the cheapest forms of electricity—2.8
and 3.0 cents per kWh, respectively—compared to all other generators including advanced coal, natural
gas, and nuclear reactors.
Wind power could viably replace natural gas

Steve Hargreaves, 7/22/08, CNN Money, “Wind Power: A reality check”, AB,
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/22/news/economy/pickens_wind/?postversion=2008072214
Despite these challenges, wind power's ability to produce 21% of the nation's electricity needs isn't out
of the question. While wind currently only makes up 0.8% of the country's total electricity production,
and would need to grow well over 20 times that to replace gas, it's worth noting that wind capacity has
increased 12 fold since 1990, according to EIA.
Wind power could replace natural gas

Loren Steffy, Reporter, 7/10/08, Houston Chronicle, “Pickens' plan is bold — too bad it won't work”, AB,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5882292.html
Pickens argued that wind technology will improve as more farms are built, and as commodity prices rise,
it will become a cost-effective power source. "As it moves in, the natural gas will move out," he said.
"The price of natural gas will still be better for vehicles and still be cheaper than foreign oil."
SDI 2008 13
Link- Biofuels
Biofuels replace natural gas demand
Jerrold E Rudie, staff writer, 7/22/08, red Orbit, “integrated biomass technologies”, AB,
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1488981/integrated_biomass_technologies/
One of the primary principles of IBT is the conversion of biomass to heat or electrical energy. It is usually
less expensive to generate bio-based electrical energy locally and distribute it regionally than to transport the
biomass to larger regional electrical generation facilities. The need for energy, especially bio-based energy, is
growing. Recent interest in distributed small- and medium-scale electrical generation from biomass and
woody waste provides new opportunities to use low- or currently no-value biomass from sorting yard
operations. The forest products industry in the United States uses almost 100 million dry tons of wood waste
annually for energy. A number of companies have begun, or are contemplating, installation of wood waste or
hog fuel gasifiers. The producer gas resulting from this thermal decomposition can replace natural gas
or be further processed to produce syngas (synthesis gas), used to manufacture other chemicals such as
methanol, higher alcohols, or hydrocarbons. All logging operations leave forest residues that are
unsuitable or too small to meet sawmill, pulp mill, panel product mill, or pole plant raw material feedstock
specifications. Targeting these biomass residues for their optimal economic use will maximize the value of
aJl currently nonmerchantable material. A number of direct conversion biomass-to- energy combustors (i.e.,
electrical generators) are being re- engineered to make them economical for smaller scale and even semi-
portable operations. These smaller biomass-to-energy units are now available and becoming profitable
alternatives to using fossil fuels. As smaller units have become available, they are being adopted by some
rural communities and small businesses. Depending on size and design of the combustors, the biofuels used
can be shredded material, hammer milled material, chips or pellets, but direct conversion of biomass to
energy requires knowing optimal fuel sizes, moisture levels, and energy contents. In addition, some of the
biofuels can be processed into pellets to meet a growing home-use market for wood pellets.
SDI 2008 14
Link- Nuclear Power (1/2)

Nuclear energy trades off with natural gas
Nicholas Loris, reporter, 7/2/8, The Heritage Foundation, “Nuclear Energy: What We Can Learn From Other
Nations”, AB, http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1977.cfm
U.S. electricity demand is projected to increase up to 40 percent by 2030, and other countries are projecting
similar increases.[4] The rapid industrial development of both China and India is already placing great
pressure on global energy supplies. And because energy sources, especially fossil fuels, are global
commodities, growing demand in one part of the world affects the global economy. As a result, higher prices
and tightened supply have some nations, such as China, experiencing power shortages.[5] While the U.S.
has, for the most part, been able to keep the lights on, with the price of gas breaking the $4 barrier and
natural gas prices increasing, every American knows full well the pain of increasing global energy
demand. Nuclear energy can help meet this growing demand. Most directly, nuclear energy can be
used to generate electricity. If that demand were not met by nuclear power, then it would likely be met
with natural gas. This would put additional pressure on natural gas reserves, driving up the price for
electricity as well as all the other goods that use natural gas in their production.
Nuclear energy reduces natural gas dependence

Ronnie Dubs, staff reporter, St. Petersburg Times, “WE WILL NEED POWER FROM NUCLEAR PLANTS”, AB,
Lexis Nexis
The first thing we need to seriously consider is the avoidance of new power generation capacity using natural
gas. Although natural gas is the energy resource of choice for new power generation plants, we are now
facing a downturn in domestic natural gas production capacity. Energy companies are drilling more holes
than ever but they have been unable to increase domestic production of natural gas for a number of years.
The addition of nuclear power plants will mitigate our dependence on costly domestic natural gas and
imported LNG to replace domestic production.
Nuclear energy reduces natural gas demand.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, 1/24/05, “Nuclear Energy’s Role in Reducing Demand for Natural Gas
Through Diversification of Energy Sources Used for Electricity Generation”, AB,
http://www.nei.org/filefolder/white_paper_reducing_demand_natural_gas_1-24-05.pdf
What nuclear energy did for U.S. electricity supply in the 1970s and 1980s with respect to oil, it can do
for natural gas over the next 10-20 years. To produce the same amount of yearly electricity as a single
1,000-megawatt nuclear plant operating at 90 percent capacity factor requires approximately 54 billion
cubic feet of natural gas. This is equivalent to the usage of approximately 660,000 residential gas
customers, or about one percent of the total residential customers in the U.S. Clearly, improving nuclear
production—through efficiency gains and building new nuclear power plants—relieves pressure on the
natural gas supply and enhances the nation’s energy diversity.
SDI 2008 15
Link- Nuclear Power (2/2)

Nuclear energy decreases natural gas prices.
Barbara Shook, Houston Bureau Chief, Energy Intelligence Dec. 10, 2007, Natural Gas Week, “Power for Oil
Sands Projects Might be From Nukes, NatGas,” Lexis VF
Alberta 's massive oil sands production and upgrading facilities require enormous quantities of electricity to
power the giant shovels and other equipment and generate steam and hydrogen for converting the bitumen-
sand mixture into synthetic crude or finished products. With the exception of some coal-fired electricity
purchased off the grid, natural gas fuels the cogeneration plants that serve the projects. Natural gas
production in Alberta is declining as the conventional fields that have been the life blood of the Western Canadian
Sedimentary Basin go into permanent decline. Western Canada lacks the extensive unconventional resources that have allowed US
production to remain relatively flat for the past three decades. Calgary-based investment bank FirstEnergy Capital predicts that Alberta 's
gas output could fall by 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day by the end of 2008 from current production of about 16.4 Bcf/d, followed by a
similar supply drop in 2009. The Nexen-OptiCan Long Lake project is dealing with the challenge by constructing a gasifier that will
convert asphaltenes, a byproduct extracted from bitumen, as fuel. Other project developers are considering gasifiers
that would burn another waste product, petroleum coke, in place of natural gas. One proposed solution
gaining a lot of attention recently is nuclear energy. On the surface, nuclear power seems to be an
attractive option. Natural gas prices are higher than anticipated and likely to become more expensive
as supplies diminish. Uranium fuel has a fixed price for as long as 30 to 50 years, noted speakers at the
Canadian Institute's Oil Sands conference. Nuclear plants also emit no carbon dioxide, the most common
greenhouse gas. Coal and heavy hydrocarbons produce large volumes of CO2. While natural gas yields lesser
amounts, it still is a source.
Nuclear power would reduce natural gas demand

Our report confirms that the natural-gas-price reductions projected by earlier modeling studies are consistent
with economic theory. Increased renewable energy and energy efficiency will cause an inward shift in
the natural gas demand curve, leading to lower natural gas prices than would have been realized under
the higher-demand conditions. Similar natural gas price reductions would likely result from increased
use of other non-natural-gas energy sources that displace natural gas consumption (e.g., coal, nuclear).
SDI 2008 16
Ext. US Key to Qatar

US imports of LNG Are key to Qatar’s market
TDS 08 “ECONOMY”, Qatar Asia, 6.06.08. http://www.traveldocs.com/qa/economy.htm
Qatar's natural gas liquefaction facilities and related industries are located in Ras Laffan Industrial City, site
of the world's largest LNG exports of more than 31 million metric tons per year. Qatar's heavy industrial
base, located in Messaieed, includes a refinery with a 140,000 bpd capacity, a fertilizer plant for urea and
ammonia, a steel plant, and a petrochemical plant, and several new petrochemical plants will be built in the
coming years. All these industries use gas for fuel. Most are joint ventures between U.S., European, and
Japanese firms and the state-owned Qatar Petroleum (QP). The U.S. is the major equipment supplier for
Qatar's oil and gas industry, and U.S. companies are playing a major role in the development of the oil
and gas sector and petrochemicals. The country's economic growth has been stunning. Qatar's nominal
GDP, currently $63.8 billion, had recently been growing at an average of 15%, and the 2007 growth rate was
12.5%. Qatar's per capita GDP is $67,000, and projected to soon be the highest in the world. The Qatari
Government's strategy is to utilize its wealth to generate more wealth by diversifying the economic
base of the country beyond hydrocarbons.
US it the vital market for Qatar natural gas.

Energy Bulletin, 4 (Hector Igbikiowubo, "2020 Scenario: OPEC May Be Replaced," 1-12-2004,
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/145) // JMP
It's 2020, and the energy ministers of the Organization of Gas-Exporting Countries, known as OGEC,
the umbrella for the dozen or so nations which dominate the market, gather in Madrid for their annual
get-together to determine production quotas and price levels for the new primary energy source that
fuels the global economy , natural gas, or more specifically, liquefied natural gas, known as LNG. That
scenario may seem somewhat fanciful right now, but the emergence of a partner, possibly even a successor,
to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, which has dominated the world"s energy
market since the 1970s, is on the cards as the natural gas business, particularly the Gulf-based LNG sector,
is set to expand into a global boom with the US as the dominant market. The worldwide shift toward
LNG will bring in its wake profound political and economic changes in many parts of the world,
providing a lifeline for the economies of some Gulf states whose oil production is sliding into decline as
fields are exhausted. "The international trade in gas delivered by pipeline and tanker, will rival the
scale and complexity of today's petroleum market," said Edmund O"Sullivan, editor-in- chief of the
Middle East Economic Digest."The world gas price will then become as important to Middle East
economies as the world oil price. Logic suggests that exporters will want to coordinate strategies to prevent
a gas price collapse. Whisper it those who dare: an OPEC for gas may soon be on the world energy agenda,"
he added. In December, some of OPEC's most important member states shifted their attention from crude oil
to LNG exports at a conference convened by the administration of the US President George W. Bush to boost
US imports of the refrigerated fuel. The United States is without doubt the key market for LNG,
currently accounting for one-quarter of the natural gas consumed in the world every day. The
Americans are increasingly concerned about the security of their energy supplies, and have long sought
to undermine OPEC's influence in the oil market. While OPEC largely controls global oil supplies and
prices, the Bush administration would like to see competition blossom among LNG exporters. Non-
OPEC producers like Russia, Norway, Trinidad, Australia and Oman, are looking at LNG exports to generate
new revenue. "It's in our interest to develop as many international sources as possible" for US imports
of LNG, US Energy Secretary, Spencer Abraham, said at the conference in Washington. "LNG is clearly
going to be a large factor in the world's future energy equation," he said.
SDI 2008 17
Ext. LNG Key to US/Qatar

LNG is the vital internal link to US-Qatar relations.
AME Info, 3 (AME Info is the ultimate Middle East business resource, "Is Doha the next Dubai? Qatar's billion-
dollar deals with big oil make it an economic heavyweight. Inside the Gulf's next energy superpower whose
ambitions shadow those of Dubai," 12-3-2003, www.ameinfo.com/31790.html) // JMP
In the space of four days in October, Qatar became an energy superpower. It signed natural gas
megadeals with ExxonMobil and Shell worth $17 billion, and has other projects worth an estimated
$20 billion with US and European energy giants in the pipeline. All this will make the tiny emirate -
OPEC's smallest oil producer - the world capital of the gas-to-liquids industry by 2010 and the single
largest supplier of liquefied natural gas to the United States, a huge energy market that is ready to
undergo rapid and vast expansion in the coming years. Qatar, which has been assuming a more assertive
role in Gulf affairs, is on target to become the world's biggest LNG exporter by 2010 with an annual output
of 30 million tons and is pushing to raise production to 45 million tons a year. Current LNG production is 15
million tons a year, mainly to Japan, Spain and the US. Qatar's success in forging these new contractual
connections, particularly with the United States, will provide it with the kind of stability and security
that its neighbors can only dream about. It also gives the emirate a huge head start on the other Gulf
producers, which are increasingly looking to gas as the energy and export-driver of the future. LNG - natural
gas supercooled and condensed for transportation by ship - is viewed by Washington as vital to the long-term
fuel supply. The ExxonMobil deal, worth $12 billion, is the centerpiece of these glittering prizes, but it has
deep political implications as well. Qatar has emerged unscathed from the political strains the events of
September 11th placed on the United States' relations with the Gulf states. It proved itself a trusted
Arab ally through its support for US policy and military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq,
particularly by allowing the US Central Command to set up its operational headquarters in the
emirate when other Gulf states refused. Centcom is a vital element in President George W. Bush's war
against terrorism and the most active military command in the US defense establishment. According
to the Texas-based security think tank Stratfor, this has meant that Doha has been given 'access to some
top-shelf technology. In addition to de facto security guarantees that serve both countries' interests,
and the economic benefits of having a few thousands soldiers kicking around their country, having
Centcom in Doha gives Qatar a say in how, where and when US forces operate and policy is
implemented - massively magnifying the small state's geopolitical punch.'
SDI 2008 18
Heg ! 2NC
A. US/Qatar relations are key basing, power projection and hegemony
The Al Udeid airbase south of Doha, the Qatari capital, serves as a logistics, command, and basing hub
for U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraqi. Nearby Camp As Sayliyah is the largest pre-positioning
facility of U.S. military equipment in the world. Qatar invested over $1 billion to construct the Al Udeid
air base during the 1990s: it did not have an air force of its own at the time. Qatar’s financing and
construction of the state-of-the-art air force base at Al Udeid was widely interpreted to be a tacit
invitation to deeper cooperation with U.S. military forces, and U.S. access to the base there was
formalized in late 2000. In April 2003, the U.S. Combat Air Operations Center for the Middle East moved
from Prince Sultan Airbase in Saudi Arabia to Qatar’s Al Udeid. Qatar is contributing $400 million to U.S.
efforts to upgrade and construct facilities there, including a new air operations command center. 34 From
FY2003 to FY2007, Congress appropriated and authorized $126 million for U.S. military construction
activities in Qatar. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 4986) authorizes
$81.7 million in FY2008 spending to build new Air Force and Special Operations facilities in Qatar.
B. Nuclear war
Zalmay Khalilzad, Senior Analyst at RAND, 1995 Washington Quarterly, Spring, Lexis
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding
principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the
United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would
be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second,
such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as
nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S.
leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and
the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global
nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar
or a multipolar balance of power system.
SDI 2008 19
Ext. Heg Internal Link

Qatar is key to US power projection and hegemony.
MEMRI Middle East Media Research Institute, 7/22/08
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP199608
"Qatar is the Largest U.S. Military Base, With the Exception of NATO Member Countries" "Last night,
an article appeared in the Qatari daily Al-Sharq, authored by one Fawaz Al-'Ajami. Al-'Ajami condemns the
Arab leaders for their eagerness to respond to invitations extended by foreign leaders, who seek to promote
their own and their allies' interests - France's invitation to the Mediterranean Union is a case in point.
[Al-'Ajami] claims that France hopes to achieve economic development by opening up markets in the Arab
countries - 'they export [goods], while we [i.e. the Arab countries] import [them].' "The columnist points out
that instead of helping to promote foreign interests, the Arabs should demand [the establishment of] a union
to deal with their own issues, such as Palestine, the Golan Heights, Sudan, Ethiopia-occupied Somalia, and
the independence of Lebanon. While stressing the urgency of [establishing] an Arab union, brother Fawaz
Al-'Ajami forgets that his own country - Qatar - is doing the least for the Arabs, and there are numerous
examples to that effect. Qatar is the largest U.S. military base, with the exception of NATO member
countries. The Al-'Udaid air base [in Qatar] is [a source of] power for the U.S. army in the Gulf,
providing the American occupying forces in Iraq with air cover and logistical aid."
SDI 2008 20
Middle East War !

A. LNG allows Qatar to secure its influence in Middle East peace.
The Economist, Jun 5th 2008, Economist.com, “Small country, big ideas,”
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11506776
IN 1952, the year that Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani was born, Qatar had fewer than 40,000 people, most of them barefoot nomads
and fishermen, and not a single school. The emirate he rules now hosts Education City, a complex of branch campuses from some of the
world's most prestigious colleges. According to IMF figures, the country's 950,000 residents this year surpassed those of Luxembourg to
become the world's richest. They enjoy an income per person of $80,870. Yet that plump figure belies the far greater private wealth of
native Qatari citizens, who number fewer than 200,000 but who own nearly all the emirate's assets, as opposed to the army of foreign
guest workers who serve them. Most of that wealth came easily, from oil. But Sheikh Hamad has succeeded in achieving something that
other petro-despots have not. Qatar's emir has stamped this Jamaica-sized patch of flat, scorched desert, which sticks out of Saudi Arabia
into the Gulf like a sore thumb, firmly on the map of international diplomacy. Last month he coaxed Lebanon's viciously bickering
politicians into ending a crippling 18-month power struggle, flying them to his capital, Doha, to thrash out an agreement. Qatar has
also mediated between insurgent clansmen and the government of Yemen, and acted as an increasingly
well-trampled bridge between the Middle East's polarised camps: America and its pro-Western Arab
allies on the one hand, and the “resistance” block that includes Iran, Syria and the Islamist parties
Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon on the other. The talk now is of Sheikh Hamad healing the rift
between Hamas and Fatah, the secular party of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and fostering a rapprochement between Syria
and its estranged Arab brothers. Qatar's oil money has certainly helped to make peace. A free week spent in one of
Doha's six-star hotels would dull the meanest fighting spirit, and there are wags in Lebanon, for instance, who contend that their
politicians pocketed other, bigger sweeteners. But there has been plenty of fast Qatari footwork too. Since Sheikh Hamad ousted his
father in a bloodless coup in 1995, observers have questioned the apparently erratic course of Qatari foreign policy. But under the
guidance of his distant cousin, Sheikh Hamad bin Jasim, the long-serving foreign minister, and more recently also prime minister, Qatar
has cut the apron strings that traditionally tie smaller Gulf states to bigger, older regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and
adopted a firmly independent line. The emirate has assiduously wooed the United States, inviting its Central Command to set up its
forward headquarters at al-Udeid, an airbase near Doha, in time for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The base has one of the biggest stocks
of American military supplies anywhere in the world. Qatar has also pleased America by regularly hosting Israeli officials, and by
sending a generous $100m in aid to help those hit by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Yet the country has reached out to America's enemies,
too. As host of the annual summit of Gulf Arab leaders this year, Sheikh Hamad broke with tradition to invite Iran's controversial
president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to attend. Following Hamas's election victory in 2006, the sheikh publicly scolded America for
working to undermine the results of the democratic process in Palestine. He has sent aid to help Gazans under Israeli siege, and millions
more to help reconstruct the mostly Shia parts of Lebanon that Israel bombed in its war in the summer of 2006 with Hizbullah, whose
leader, Hassan Nasrallah, he is said to admire. Qatari property investment has also helped to bolster Syria's sagging economy.
Meanwhile, both Sheikh Hamads have generously sponsored the Qatar-based satellite channel, al-Jazeera, whose lively, critical coverage
and reform-Islamist leanings continue to attract high audience ratings, while annoying both pro-Israeli Americans as well as religiously
conservative Saudis. But the apparent contradictions in Qatar's policy are now paying off. Other mediators failed in
Lebanon, for instance, because they were not seen as neutral. And even if it is just Qatar's money that
wins friends, there is plenty more of that coming. The emirate's output of liquid natural gas, its biggest
export, is set to double in the next five years.
B. Global war.
Reuters 2007“Middle East turmoil could cause world war: U.S. envoy.” 8/27.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL2719552620070827
Upheaval in the Middle East and Islamic civilization could cause another world war, the U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations was quoted as saying in an Austrian newspaper interview published on
Monday. Zalmay Khalilzad told the daily Die Presse the Middle East was now so disordered that it had the
potential to inflame the world as Europe did during the first half of the 20th century. "The (Middle
East) is going through a very difficult transformation phase. That has strengthened extremism and
creates a breeding ground for terrorism," he said in remarks translated by Reuters into English from the published
German. "Europe was just as dysfunctional for a while. And some of its wars became world wars. Now
the problems of the Middle East and Islamic civilization have the same potential to engulf the world," he was
quoted as saying.
SDI 2008 21
Ext. Middle East War Internal Link

Qatar’s economic stability is key to peace in the Middle East.
Nicholas Blanford Beirut correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor 5/23/08 “Why Qatar is emerging as
Middle East peacemaker http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0523/p06s02-wome.html?page=1
Doha, Qatar - This tiny Gulf state emerged this week at the forefront of regional diplomacy, successfully
shepherding the negotiations between feuding Lebanese factions to end months of political turmoil and
violence. With regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, aligned behind rival players in Lebanon,
Qatar is uniquely suited to help mediate Lebanon's crisis. It's seen as charting an unashamedly
independent path in the maze of Arab politics,
"Just a year ago, Saudi Arabia was trying to do this [mediation], but Saudi Arabia is considered an interested
party. But Qatar is somewhat in between," says Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Endowment's Middle
East Center in Beirut. "Qatar, on the Lebanon issue, is the only country with good relations on both sides
and has the money to back it up."Qatar's intense mediation bore fruit Wednesday in a last-minute deal on
the composition of the next Lebanese government, an electoral law, the election of a new president, and a
future dialogue on the fate of the militant Shiite Hezbollah's weapons. In a highly factionalized Middle East,
where the US and Iran and their respective regional allies are struggling for dominance, Qatar is in the
unusual position of having a foot in both camps. It remains a key ally of Washington, hosting the Al-Udeid
Air Base, the largest US military facility in the region. It enjoys economic ties to Israel, and Israeli officials
often participate in meetings and conferences in Doha. Yet Qatar also is Syria's closest Arab friend,
investing millions of dollars in major property development projects and providing diplomatic
support. The Damascus regime is viewed with hostility by other key Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia,
Jordan, and Egypt, for its close ties to Iran and influence in Lebanon. According to Qataris, Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad and his wife, Asma, are often seen wandering through Doha's gleaming shopping malls as
guests of Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani. A thumb-shaped peninsula jutting into the Persian Gulf,
Qatar possesses the third-largest gas deposits in the world and last year became the world's largest
liquefied natural gas exporter. Oil and gas amount to more than 60 percent of gross domestic product,
making it one of the higher per-capita income states in the world. While many Arab Gulf countries fret about
Iran's regional ambitions, Qatar enjoys genial relations with the Islamic Republic. In December, Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became the first Iranian head of state to attend the annual summit of the
Gulf Cooperation Council in Doha. "Qatar is a tiny fish stuck between giants – Iran and Saudi Arabia," says
Hady Amr, director of the Brookings Doha Center. "It simply tries to balance all those interests with those of
the US. So it does have the US military base, but it actively balances this with deeper relations with Iran."
Despite its limited size, Qatar is "rising in regional and even international prominence as a convener of
vital conferences," Mr. Amr adds, citing the World Trade Organization's Doha Round and the Asian Games
among others.
SDI 2008 22
AT: Qatar Corrupt/Econ not liberalized

Qatar has a transparent and liberalized economy capable of increased investment.
BuyUsa.Com 08 (U.S. Commercial service "Market of the Month – Qatar" Doha Qatar SkylineQatar - Market of
the Month January 2008, http://www.buyusa.gov/sacramento/qatarmarket.html) //DG
Doing Business in Qatar There is great optimism and excitement among the business community in
Qatar. By transforming hydrocarbon wealth into modern health facilities, tourism infrastructure, and
western-style education institutions, the Qatari Government aims to engender a forward-looking and highly
skilled population. The Qatari Government has established credibility among the population and the business
community. When plans and projects are announced, they are usually realized, and contracts are awarded in a
generally efficient and transparent manner. Qatar is very amenable to western visitors, and security
experts consider Qatar one of the lowest crime countries on earth. U.S. Commercial Service Director
General Israel Hernandez at U.S. Commercial Service Doha Opening Ceremony In the last five years,
Qatar has liberalized its trade and investment climate in line with its WTO obligations by reducing
tariffs, removing unnecessary restrictions and barriers to trade, and providing foreign investors more
opportunities. There are many positive aspects to Qatar’s business framework. U.S. companies report that
the customs clearing process is generally problem-free. Qatari companies and customers are highly
interested in working with Americans and buying U.S. products and services. Doing business with
Qatar Petroleum and the public sector is in general transparent and efficient. When disputes do arise, it
is possible to resolve commercial disputes in Qatari courts, though the process is more time-consuming than
in the United States. U.S. firms also report that industrial standards that are applied in Qatar are
favorable to U.S. exports. Qatar has a stable currency and the country imposes no foreign exchange
controls. There are well-capitalized financial institutions in Qatar. Furthermore, the government
permits up to 100% of foreign ownership in agriculture, manufacturing, health, education, tourism,
power, and projects involved in Qatar’s natural resources. However, with all of this tremendous
growth and development comes some expected growing pains. In some cases, the country’s economy is
growing faster than the evolution of necessary laws and procedures affecting business to keep up.
Sometimes regulations are not widely published and are at times enforced with little or no consultation with
the private sector. Shortages in materials and labor are common in this red-hot economic environment. In
addition, rent is increasing rapidly given the growth of the economy and the influx of foreign workers into
Qatar, and high overall inflation continues to be a concern throughout the region. The US Commercial
Service has recently opened an office in Qatar, and stands ready to assist US firms in their market
development efforts in this dynamic country. Business dealings in Qatar, and throughout the Middle East
rely on personal interaction and business relationships take time to cultivate. American firms
considering Qatar as a market are encouraged to visit and avail themselves of the counseling and
customized services available from the Commercial Section of the American Embassy in Doha. Why Qatar?
SDI 2008 23
AT: Domestic Reserves Solve

Domestic supply isn’t enough- Qatar and foreign suppliers are key
Michael Klare – professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, 2006 The Nation, “The
Geopolitics of Natural Gas,” 1-23-2006, www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Geopolitics_NaturalGas.html) //
JMP
Item. Ever since India announced plans more than a year ago to build a natural gas pipeline from fields in Iran to its own territory via
Pakistan, the Bush Administration has been applying pressure on New Delhi to cancel the project, claiming it will undermine US attempts
to isolate Tehran and curb its nuclear efforts. "We have communicated to the Indian government our concerns about the gas pipeline
cooperation between Iran and India," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced after meeting with Indian Foreign Minister Natwar
Singh on March 16. But the Indians have continued talks with Islamabad and Tehran over the pipeline plan. The United States is
becoming increasingly dependent on natural gas. This country now relies on natural gas for approximately one-fourth of its
total energy supply, more than from any source except oil. As a result, the economy has become more and more vulnerable to fluctuations in
gas supply and pricing-a vulnerability that should be especially evident this winter as gas prices hit record levels, with painful effects on the
poor. Natural gas provides approximately 14 percent of the energy used to generate electricity in this country, 45 percent of home heating
fuel and 31 percent of the energy and petrochemicals consumed by agriculture and industry. Gas is also used as a feedstock for the
manufacture of hydrogen, a promising new entrant in the race to develop alternative fuels. The United States currently relies on
North American supplies for most of its gas, but with those reserves being depleted at a rapid pace and
few untapped fields available for exploitation, need for gas from other regions is growing and energy
plants seek more gas from foreign suppliers like Qatar, Nigeria and Russia. As with oil, America could become heavily
dependent on foreign suppliers for essential energy needs, a situation fraught with danger for national security. Many of America's key
allies, including the NATO powers and Japan, are dependent on imports.
North American LNG won’t be enough to keep up.

Hil Anderson 16 Junnn 2008, United Press International, “Natural Gas economics turn international”, Lexis
Nexis, AB
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan Tuesday dumped icy cold water on the notion that natural
gas will be able to keep the U.S. economy humming without the uncertainty that accompanies
dependence on foreign oil imports. Testifying before the House Energy and Commerce Committee,
Greenspan said the nation appeared destined -- or doomed -- to include not only gas produced in North
America in its energy mix for the 21st century, but also on increasing volumes of liquefied natural gas,
or LNG, from overseas.
SDI 2008 24
AT: Offshore Drilling Solves

Oil drilling in the U.S. is not enough to make the country independent of foreign oil.
Ford Gunter, Houston Business Journal; November 26, 2007
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2007/11/26/daily10.html
Even so, according to a model built by the Baker Institute, opening restricted areas in the Outer Continental
Shelf and Rocky Mountains to drilling and resource development "will not render the United States
energy independent nor will it even lower U.S. dependence on LNG imports in 2015 by a significant
volume."
SDI 2008 25
AT: Canada Solves

Canada doesn’t have the needed resources for natural gas
Spero News 6/3008 “Is Liquified Natural Gas an Economic Target?”
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15596&t=Is+Liquified+Natural+Gas+an+Economic+Target%3F
The natural gas industry has an excellent safety record. However, the 9/11 attacks have changed the threat
profile. If the U.S. is to continue increasing its appetite for natural gas, it will inevitably increase its
imports of LNG because Canada cannot provide enough natural gas to meet U.S. future requirements.
SDI 2008 26
US-Qatar Relations Strong

US-Qatar relations high- security cooperation and economic links
U.S. Department of State, June 2008 Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, “Background Note: Qatar,”
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5437.htm
U.S.-QATARI RELATIONS Bilateral relations are strong and expanding. The U.S. embassy was opened
in March 1973. The first resident U.S. ambassador arrived in July 1974. Ties between the U.S. and Qatar are
excellent. Amir Hamad last visited Washington in 2004, and President Bush visited Qatar in 2003. Qatar and
the United States coordinate closely on regional diplomatic initiatives, cooperate to increase security in
the Gulf, and enjoy extensive economic links, especially in the hydrocarbons sector. Qatar sees the
development of a world-class educational system as key to its continued success. As a result, hundreds of
Qataris study in the United States. Cornell University has established a degree-granting branch medical
school campus in Doha, and other universities including Texas A&M, Carnegie Mellon University, the
Virginia Commonwealth University School of Design, the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, and
Northwestern also have branch campuses in Qatar's "Education City" complex.
US-Qatar relations high- defense cooperation

The United States promptly recognized the assumption of power by Shaikh Hamad in June 1995 and has
welcomed Qatar’s defense cooperation, as well as Qatari political, economic, and educational reform
efforts since that time. Qatari- U.S. defense relations have expanded over the last 15 years to include
cooperative defense exercises, equipment pre-positioning, and base access agreements, although Qatari
officials have been, at times, critical of U.S. military operations in the Persian Gulf. 32 U.S. concerns
regarding alleged material support for terrorist groups by some Qataris, including members of the royal
family, have been balanced over time by Qatar’s counterterrorism efforts and its broader, long-term
commitment to host and support U.S. military forces being used in ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and the global war on terrorism. Today, Qatari-U.S. relations remain cordial and close. Since September
2005, Qatar has donated $100 million to victims of Hurricane Katrina in the U.S. Gulf states.
SDI 2008 27
Dependence ! 2NC
A. Natural gas is the only way to break oil dependence
AgWeb.com, 7-9-08, “Pickens Plan: Creating an Energy-Secure Future”, LexisNexis, CM
Pickens says the U.S. has several fuel options, with some being better than others. Coal : "Coal is just not
going to do it," he says. Natural Gas : Pickens believes natural gas is the best option for a transportation
fuel source. He says it burns cleaner, is cheaper and is domestic. Additionally, he says nearly 8 million
vehicles in the world are capable of running on natural gas. Ethanol : Pickens admits ethanol is not going
to be the energy solution in the U.S., but says he likes it better than foreign oil. "Ethanol is an ugly baby, but
it's our baby." Hydro power : "It works great," he says. But, he doesn't see it as a feasible option due to the
lack of resources. Wind/Solar : Pickens applauds the use of both wind and solar as renewable energy sources.
He says they haven't been developed as they should because foreign oil was too cheap for too long. Nuclear :
"Nuclear will work," he says. "But, it will take a long time." The Plan Pickens believes the best candidate
for breaking the addiction to foreign oil is natural gas . "Natural gas is the second largest natural
resource in the country," he says. "It is the only resource in America we have that can make a
difference." He also says the country has to develop more wind farms and that the U.S. has a better potential
for large-scale wind power than any country in the world. He also believes building wind farms in rural
America is a fabulous opportunity to turn a local economy around. By taking advantage of the U.S.'s
natural gas resources and building new wind-generation facilities, as outlined in his plan, Pickens says
more than one-third of foreign oil imports will be replaced within 10 years.
B. Oil dependence causes terrorist attacks.

RJ Eskow, Huffington Post 8/16/06 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/a-national-security-
initi_b_27355.html
Our dependence on foreign oil greatly increases our susceptibility to terrorism, by forcing us to
continue supporting widely-hated, non-Democratic regimes in the Middle East. A sister initiative to
reduce oil dependence would go a long way toward easing the terrorist threat, by allowing us to
become more neutral brokers in the Arabian peninsula.We also need to face some hard facts about
terrorists: In many ways, they've adopted far more advanced 21st Century techniques in this struggle
than we have. They use blogs, websites, emails, pop music, video, art, poetry ... even video games ... to build
support and find recruits.
C. Extinction
Sid-Ahmed ’04 (Mohamed,- political analyst for Al-Ahram weekly “Extinction!” http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the
negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves,
police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise
and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different
type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds.
This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends
when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the
whole planet, we will all be losers.
SDI 2008 28
Econ ! 2NC
A. Low gas prices kill the economy
Tavia Grant, 12-22-07, The Globe and Mail, December 22, 2007 Saturday Numbers give the lie that
slowdown fears; Factories are being shuttered, shoppers abandoning malls and growth has hit the skids, or so
we're told. The data say otherwise, lexis, bc
The conventional wisdom goes like this: Manufacturers are crumbling, consumers crossing the border
are denting domestic retail sales, and economic growth has withered.Thing is, that may all be wrong.
Economic growth once again topped forecasts, rising 0.2 per cent in October in a month when a strong
currency was supposed to have battered exports and sent shoppers on U.S. spending sprees. Instead, the
effect of border shopping has been muted. Consumer spending and factory output were key drivers of growth
- while the energy sector, of all things, drooped. Annual growth is now running at 2.8 per cent, the fastest
in more than a year, Statistics Canada said yesterday. That pace has accelerated from just 1.8 per cent at the
start of the year, representing an extra $13-billion in the economy. Of that, a full $10-billion stems from a
turnaround in manufacturing, according to Philip Cross, chief of current economic analysis at Statscan. Of
that, a full $10-billion stems from a turnaround in manufacturing, according to Philip Cross, chief of current
economic analysis at Statscan. "The big turnarounds this year have been in manufacturing and wholesale,"
he said. "If there's one sector that's collapsing, it's not retailers, or manufacturers - it's natural gas,
which is clearly the weak part of the economy." Low natural gas prices are the key reason, though
high commodity prices elsewhere are still benefiting Canada.
B. Nuclear war.
Walter Russel Mead, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, 1992 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.
SDI 2008 29
AT: Impact Turns

LNG is safe – the environmentalists are wrong
Alex Epstein (Providence Journal, November 16, 2004; Washington Times, November 18, 2004)
“Environmentalism's Dangerous Campaign for "Safety"” The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1077&page=NewsArticle&id=10421 OZ
America's domestic shortage of natural gas is, as Alan Greenspan has observed, "a very serious
problem." Fortunately, there is a proven technology that could enable Americans to access plentiful
natural gas stores from overseas: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)--natural gas cooled and condensed into a
portable liquid, 1/600th its original volume. Given these facts, one might expect energy-short state
governments to eagerly approve corporations' proposals for new LNG facilities; instead, bowing to pressure
from environmentalists, they are repeatedly rejecting them. Environmentalists level many objections against
LNG--for example, that LNG facilities would displace "plant and animal life" or that LNG tankers may
require harbors to be dredged--but one objection has been more effective than all the rest combined: the
claim that LNG is catastrophically unsafe. The Sierra Club calls LNG "extremely volatile," and labels LNG
tankers and storage facilities an "enormous risk" that "endanger our health and safety." A documentary
popular among opponents of LNG claims that an LNG mishap or a terrorist attack on an LNG facility could
incinerate an entire city. Is LNG a disaster waiting to happen? Consider its history. In the last 60 years
in the United States, only one person has died in an LNG-related accident. Countries like Japan use
LNG accident-free to get nearly all of their natural gas. In 1995, LNG facilities in Kobe, Japan, went
undamaged in an earthquake that registered 6.8 on the Richter scale! LNG's admirable safety record is
the result of two fundamental factors. First, contrary to environmentalist propaganda, LNG is not an
especially volatile, hazardous material--it is far less hazardous than many commonly used substances,
such as propane, since it can become explosive and flammable only under rare conditions. Second,
LNG producers protect against these conditions by using advanced safety technologies and
procedures--such as double-hull tankers, safety-systems with automatic shutdown, and the use of
offshore facilities far removed from population centers. But what about the claim that the risk of
infiltration by terrorists justifies banning LNG--such as Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's statement, in
response to a proposed facility, that there "is simply no way that it makes sense to site an LNG [facility] in
this location in the post-9/11 world"? This is no more valid than saying that because terrorists can do
massive damage by crashing planes into buildings, planes and buildings should be banned. Would
environmentalists accept the argument that since arsonists can do massive damage by burning trees--
witness the California forest fires--trees should be banned? The fact that something can be misused to
harm others is an argument only for forbidding that misuse (where possible)--not for depriving
individuals of the many beneficial uses of trees, planes, or LNG. (And in the case where the danger
comes from a foreign aggressor, it is the aggressor, not one of his unlimited potential targets, that must
be eliminated.) The fallacious technique of arguing against the "safety" of a technology by citing some
potential misuse is not unique to LNG--it is used by environmentalists to oppose other life-promoting
technologies, such as nuclear power and biotechnology. And this technique itself is just one of the many
pseudo-logical, pseudo-scientific methods environmentalists use to condemn technologies as "unsafe."
Environmentalists got the pesticide DDT and the apple preservative Alar off the market with claims that each
causes cancer--based on studies using mice fed the equivalent of over 100,000 times normal human
consumption. To "prove" that fossil fuels cause cataclysmic climate change--first, global cooling in the
1970s, now, global warming--environmentalists cite the predictions of wildly inaccurate computer
models that, according to climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, perform "worse than a table of random
numbers when applied to U.S. temperatures." The environmentalists' proclamations of danger and
doom are not honest errors based on an overzealous concern for human safety and well-being--they are
a dishonest scare-tactic to make their anti-industrial policies appealing to those who do not share the
environmentalist belief that nature should be preserved at human expense. Observe that
environmentalists are utterly indifferent to the human toll of abandoning "unsafe" technologies--of natural
gas shortages, of the $200 million lost by apple-growers over the Alar scare, of the energy crises created by
anti-nuclear, anti-fossil fuel policies, of the millions who continue to die unnecessarily due to the DDT ban.
Safety in the pursuit of technology is a valid concern, but only within the context of a preeminent regard for
human well-being and its greatest benefactor: industrial civilization. Given their track record of dishonest
arguments and the anti-industrial goals that motivate them, environmentalists' screams about "safety"
should be dismissed out-of-hand and not be permitted to further thwart technological progress.
SDI 2008 30
AT: Natural Gas Unsafe

It is unlikely that a large impact would result from LNG explosions
Council on Foreign Relations, written by Eben Kaplan 2/27/06 “Liquefied Natural Gas: A Potential Terrorist
Target?” http://www.cfr.org/publication/9810/ OZ
But an attack on an LNG terminal might not be so damaging. Terminals are equipped with emergency
fire detection mechanisms designed to minimize the impact of fires resulting from terrorist attacks or
accidents. The most attractive targets are the boats: 1,000-foot tankers with double hulls and specially
constructed storage tanks that keep the LNG cold. A report, put out by Good Harbor Consulting assessing the
risk of a proposed LNG terminal in Providence, Rhode Island, concluded that a successful terrorist attack
on a tanker could result in as many as 8,000 deaths and upwards of 20,000 injuries. It is important to
keep in mind that this is the worst case scenario. A report on LNG safety and security by the University of
Texas' Center for Energy and Economics explains LNG "tanks require exceptionally large amounts of
force to cause damage. Because the amount of energy required to breach containment is so large, in
almost all cases the major hazard presented by terrorists is a fire, not an explosion."
The effects of any safety problem will not spread- no terminal impact
Dr. G. A. Melhem, PHD Professor of Structural Engineering 2006 “Managing LNG Risks: Separating the Facts
from the Myths” updated 2006, http://archives1.iomosaic.com/whitepapers/Managing%20LNG%20Risks.pdf)
In summary, then, it is clear that there is a significant resurgence in proposed projects to import LNG into the
United States. Along with this renewed interest it is understandable that there is increasing concern
regarding the safety associated with large scale LNG importation. It is legitimate for an inquiring and
concerned public to ask pertinent questions and by the same token it is legitimate for those well versed in
LNG safety to answer those questions. It is totally inappropriate for segments of the media and groups of
citizens to engage in fear-mongering and initiate campaigns of misinformation. In this paper we have
drawn upon the vast amount of field measurements and data, operational and engineering information
regarding LNG gathered over the last 60 years to candidly address the safety issues associated with
large scale LNG importation. We have taken into account the new threats that have emerged in the form of
terrorism in our evaluations as well. The overall conclusion is straightforward. In the highly unlikely
event of a very large scale release of LNG on land or water, significant impact will be felt in the vicinity
of the release. The zone of impact will be moderate but will not extend anywhere close to the 30 miles
predicted by some illinformed groups. As long as the LNG vapor cloud is unconfined, it will not explode. If
the cloud encounters populated areas it will quickly find an ignition source before covering large populated
areas and burn back to the spill site. If mass casualty is the goal of any terrorist group, then LNG facilities
and tankers are not good targets. Finally, since the Cleveland accident of 1944, the LNG industry has
amassed 60 years of transportation and operational experience world wide without a single casualty
being inflicted on the general public.
SDI 2008 31
AT: Terrorism Turn

There are precautions in place
Council on Foreign Relations, written by Eben Kaplan 2/27/06 “Liquefied Natural Gas: A Potential Terrorist
Target?” http://www.cfr.org/publication/9810/ OZ
What safety precautions are taken to prevent such attacks? LNG tankers approaching U.S. waters must
provide ninety-six hours' notice, allowing the Coast Guard to provide a small flotilla to safely escort the boat
to its destination. Added security detail includes local police boats, divers, firefighting tugboats, and a
helicopter. Bridges along the tanker's route are closed and nearby airports suspend flights. Any private
vessels that drift too close are sternly turned away. Tankers are inspected and screened for explosives
before they are allowed to approach land, and tanker crews must pass a security check before being
allowed to board the vessels. At LNG terminals, there is also a heavy security presence; access to the
terminals is controlled, and security personnel perform regular threat-response drills. Because of its
low cost and high impact, a U.S.S. Cole-style attack remains an important security concern for defense
planners. "It's not a difficult thing to do if you're determined to do it," Fay says. "It doesn't require trained
experts to evade the Coast Guard." When a passenger jet enters restricted airspace over a nuclear plant, it is
the U.S. president, Knake says, who must decide whether to repel the plane with force. Yet when a private
craft drifts too close to an LNG tanker, "you could have a petty officer in the Coast Guard making this call,"
he says.
The risk of a terrorist attack because of LNG is not likely.

(Dr. G. A. Melhem, Dr. A. S. Kalelkar, Dr. S. Saraf "Managing LNG Risks: Separating the Facts from the
Myths" updated 2006, http://archives1.iomosaic.com/whitepapers/Managing%20LNG%20Risks.pdf) AP
After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, government agencies and the public became more concerned about
chemical storage and transportation facilities that are close to populated areas. Facilities handling large
quantities of hazardous materials, such as LNG terminals and tankers, were initially identified as attractive
terrorist targets. The scenario feared by all involves a terrorist using an explosive charge (or flying an
airplane) to breach and possibly detonate one or more storage tanks on a ship containing up to 125,000 m3 of
LNG in a heavily populated area. The same scenario is feared for large LNG storage tanks. As a result,
security and surveillance of LNG terminals/facilities and ships coming to port to unload LNG cargo
have increased considerably. In 2002, the city of Boston denied permission to an LNG tanker from entering
port and unloading its much needed LNG cargo at an Everett LNG terminal, during the winter. In addition,
there is significant opposition to proposals for LNG terminal expansions, and as well as proposals to build
new LNG terminals. The opposition comes from both the general public as well as politicians. There is a lot
of debate surrounding the potential for an LNG explosion. Let us examine the issue of possible LNG
explosion when the liquid and vapor are not confined. First, LNG has to be vaporized and then mixed in the
right proportions with air in order to obtain a composition that can burn. Furthermore, methane is relatively
insensitive to initiation as compared to heavier hydrocarbons. Available data and good understanding of
explosion dynamics indicate that it is not possible to detonate LNG vapors, even with the use of an explosive
charge (that is large enough) on a storage tank, unless the LNG vapors contain high fractions of ethane and
propane (more than 20%). Explosion test data on methane/ethane mixtures in the vapor phase support these
statements1. The likelihood of this scenario is equivalent to each of the authors of this paper winning
the power ball or megabucks lottery several times, simultaneously. The most likely outcome of a
terrorist attack will be a large pool fire and possibly a low order deflagration/flash fire of finely divided
LNG liquid droplets aerosolized by the blast force of the explosive charge. LNG pool fire hazards are
localized and as a result thermal radiation effects (2nd degree burns) are typically confined to within one or
two pool diameters from the edge of the flame. This significantly limits the extent of impact. As a result,
LNG tankers and bulk storage tanks are not attractive targets for terrorists who seek to achieve mass
casualties.
SDI 2008 32
AT: Hurst Turns

Hurst is wrong and biased – empirical evidence & testaments show
Maritime Accident Casebook was created by Bob Couttie in June 2007. It quickly established itself as an
authoritative, credible source, popular among both seafarers and maritime accident investigators. It is a
voluntary, free resource for seafarers and those who train them and support is always welcome. 6/25/08
http://www.maritimeaccident.org/2008/06/25/lng-terrorism-al-quaida-is-winning/ OZ
Sharp eyes picked up on a headline in Maritime Safety News for 16th June: “The LNG Threat:Liquefied
Natural Gas Tankers Remain Giant Terror Targets on the extremist American website The Cutting Edge,. We
would have ignored it except that the report was based on a paper,.The Terrorist Threat to Liquefied
Natural Gas: Fact or Fiction? from a political analyst with the US military’s Foreign Military Studies
Office, Cindy Hurst, a Lieutenant Commander in the US Navy Reserve, and is, therefore, likely to be cited
in other news reports and academic papers and may ‘inform policy’ as the saying goes. The paper originates
with the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security,IAGS, a grouping of politicians, rightwing
activists and religious organisations and associated with the ‘Make American Free Coalition”‘ which
tells us it is “spearheading a global effort to transition the transportation sector to next-generation
fuels and vehicles that can utilize them, the United States can deny its adversaries the wherewithal they
use to harm us.” The assumption of the paper is that LNG carriers are manned by non-American crews and
flagged under non-US registries and until they are, America won’t be safe: “…members of the public remain
adamantly opposed to bringing LNG with its foreign ships and crews into their “backyards,” perhaps rightly
so.” Or, more likely, wrongly so. A sniffy person might point out that American men, women and
children are more at risk from other American men, women and, sadly, children than from Al Quaida.
Eight times more Americans are killed by American bullets every year than died in the 9/11 attack at
‘foreign’ hands. Every American president subject to actual or attempted assassination has been the victim
of an American with the sole exception of William Kinley in 1901. Says Hurst: “The rest of the world
does not seem to share the same security and safety concerns as Americans regarding LNG. This could
be a potential problem..” Of course, it may be that the rest of the world has a far better idea of the real
potential for using an LNG carrier as a weapon and whther or not one is likely explode if attacked.”
One of MAC’s correspondents, in command of an LNG tanker, criticised the Cutting Edge version of the
Hurst report: “Yet another article by partisan authors scaring the pants off the American public. I am
master of one of these potential LNG bombers they seem so worried about and it distresses me beyond
words to be slandered in front of Congress. My crime is to be non-American. The union delegate
speaking to congress has alternate motives, he’s looking for jobs for his members, terrorism is the red
herring being used to convince the American public I am a threat. “As for all this rot about flags of
convenience, where does the author get her information from? In case anyone really is interested many of the
new LNG ships, including the one I am master of is registered in the Marshall Islands, which I believe is US
territory and a US second register. “Cut out this nonsense and scaremongering. Tell the truth for a
change. Anyone who knows anything about LNG tankers knows it’s almost impossible to blow such a
ship up.” The mechanism posited by Hurst is a boiling-liquid-expanding-vapor-explosion or BLEVE and
suggests, based on a report citing a DNV executive, that Moss-type tanks are particularly at risk. She does
not suggest any means by which this could occur. Indeed, one of Hurst’s sources, Scott Conway who has
served eight years onboard LNG tankers and who is intimately familiar with the construction of the Moss
spherical tanker, asks: ““Where is the BLEVE going to occur in this tank? Where are you going to
direct the flames back at this tank to heat up the liquid? How are you going to build up the pressure so
that it overcomes the safety release? When you can explain this all logically as per the ship’s
construction, then we’ll talk seriously.” Neither Hurst, nor The Cutting Edge provide a practical
scenario for creating a BLEVE in a Moss tank, or any other LNG tank, logically or illogically.
SDI 2008 33
AT: Iran LNG

Iran isn’t capable of supplying the US- Sanctions and lack of technology and infrastructre
AME Info, 3 (AME Info is the ultimate Middle East business resource, "Is Doha the next Dubai? Qatar's billion-
dollar deals with big oil make it an economic heavyweight. Inside the Gulf's next energy superpower whose
ambitions shadow those of Dubai," 12-3-2003, www.ameinfo.com/31790.html) // JMP
Qatar is ideally positioned to become the leading gas supplier to its partners in the Gulf Cooperation
Council. Demand has been rising at 6.5 percent a year and some of these states are already finding
themselves hard put to meet it. By 2005, the GCC's overall deficit is expected to hit 4.5 billion cubic feet per
day, and 6 billion cubic feet per day by 2010. Collectively, the GCC's current gas reserves are estimated at
975 trillion cubic feet. But with the exception of Qatar these are mostly what is known as 'associated gas'
linked to oil production and not capable of meeting the rising demand for gas. Saudi Arabia has an
estimated 25 trillion cubic feet of oil-associated gas and is in the process of opening up its upstream gas
sector to foreign investment, the first time that has happened since the oil industry was nationalized in 1975.
But that is proving to be a laborious process and it will take years before production begins. Even then, the
gas will be used for domestic consumption rather than export. Iran is the only regional state that can rival
Qatar's gas reserves. Its big offshore South Pars field in the Gulf, for instance, is ripe for foreign
investment. But Iran is having to struggle to attract sufficient technology and funds to develop its
massive reserves and lags far behind Qatar's breakneck development program over the last 10 years or
so. Unilateral sanctions imposed on Iran by the United States prevent American companies from
providing investment. The GCC has long talked about building a regional gas grid based in Qatar's
North Field to supply the alliance's member states. Recurring power shortages in the region have given
the project some urgency, yet the idea, like many others involving collective GCC participation, has
foundered because of a lack of political will. Another Gulf-wide project - an oil pipeline starting in
Kuwait to link all the GCC countries - would provide export terminals for tankers on the Arabian Sea coast,
rather than inside the Gulf. Shipping routes out of the Gulf have to pass through the chokepoint Strait of
Hormuz, which is vulnerable to blockage. The idea has been kicking around for decades, and is trotted out
with every regional crisis, but always winds up getting shelved - as it did when the GCC oil ministers met in
Doha in early November. Perhaps the prospects for the gas grid will fare better as regional demand for
Qatar's abundance of this source of energy inexorably mounts.
SDI 2008 34
Natural Gas Solves the Aff Better- Warming (1/2)

Gas is the only viable way to reduce emissions- alternative energy will fail.
Foster Natural Gas Report, 10-5-07, Report No. 2663; Pg. 8, “No Restraint: Chesapeake Energy CEO
Continues Offensive To Promote Natural Gas Over Coal”, LexisNexis, CM
Aubrey McClendon is pushing natural gas as clean, abundant, and affordable, the best solution for
global warming and national energy security. The chief executive officer (CEO) of Oklahoma City-based
Chesapeake Energy Corp. distributed a "Gas Manifesto" at the Natural Gas Roundtable on September 27
making the case for each of his claims. Chesapeake, which boasts former Oklahoma Governor Frank
Keating (R) and former U.S. Senator Don Nickles (R) as board members, grew from an initial investment of
$50,000 to become one of the largest gas producers in the United States and the largest independent gas
producer. The company has been exploring or acquiring assets in the Mid-Continent, Forth Worth Barnett
Shale, Fayetteville Shale, Permian Basin, Delaware Basin, South Texas, Texas Gulf Coast, Ark-La-Tex and
Appalachian Basins. Chesapeake is gas-heavy, with only about 8% of its holdings in oil. After the 1998-
1999 price collapse, McClendon and partners bet that unconventional gas formations like tight sands and
shale would become more economic, given the "structural increase" in gas prices and improvements in
horizontal directional drilling (HDD) and well-completion technologies. From 2000 to 2006, they launched
an aggressive leasing program to acquire proven developed and undeveloped reserves and, later, possible and
probable reserves. The company now has a 10-year inventory of drilling sites, 12.2 million onshore acres
under lease, 3-D seismic data for 17.7 million acres, and 10 Tcf of estimated proved reserves - all east of the
Rockies. Production growth is at 19% this year, and Chesapeake expects 18-22% in 2007, 14-18% in 2008,
and 12-16% in 2009. "There's a lot more gas out there than anyone realizes," McClendon told the
Roundtable, and one big reason is that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) employs a
definition of "proven" gas reserves that he considers obsolete. The current definition, he told FNGR,
captures reserves in vertical but not horizontal plays, which can be substantial. The latest Potential Gas
Committee study by the Colorado School of Mines estimates a 75-year supply of natural gas, McClendon
reminded the group of energy insiders, and U.S. and Canadian studies together promise over 120 years of
North American supply. Recent shale discoveries, the CEO claimed, "change everything we know about gas
supply in the U.S. and the world." The prospects are equally sunny for gas prices. McClendon insists that gas
is comparatively cheap - priced at roughly 50% of the Btu equivalent price of oil. Prices are, indeed, higher
than five years ago, but milk prices are up 110%, most metals are up 400-500%, and oil is up 100-150% over
the same period. Meanwhile, Chesapeake's costs have at least doubled in the past five years, and
independents "are now producing at a loss," despite what is assumed on Capitol Hill. In any case, the
developing global market for liquefied natural gas (LNG) "virtually assures" that the days of $10+ price
spikes "are over in the U.S." On the demand side, "it's a great time" to be a gas consumer because the 1 Bcf/d
rise in gas demand for power is "more than offset" by a 1 Bcf/d drop in industrial and space heating demand.
On environmental grounds, gas is and should remain the preferred fuel for new power plants,
McClendon went on. In addition to being cleaner, gas plants have predictable construction costs and
time lines, and fuel prices can be hedged for 15-20 years. Gas is produced in 22 of 50 states, which
disperses the benefits of greater production and use. Gas should even begin to back out gasoline and
diesel usage. "Want to reduce OPEC's power and reduce U.S. trade deficit? It's simple: Use natural
gas instead of oil in the transportation sector." According to McClendon, switching to gas as a primary
fuel would spare Detroit a return to the "econobox" cars manufactured in the 1970s and 1980s.
SDI 2008 35
Natural Gas Solves the Aff Better- Warming (2/2)

Natural gas is better to solve global warming than alternative energy
M2 Presswire, 1-17-08, “Omnitek Engineering, Corp.: Omnitek Engineering, Corp. Announces New Chinese
Language Website”, LexisNexis, CM
As the price of crude oil continues to increase and the thread of global warming and air pollution
remains, the search for an alternative fuel becomes increasingly important. Natural gas has emerged as
a perfect solution to these challenges. Readily available in many countries from indigenous sources,
natural gas is inexpensive and clean burning. Diesel engines have been the backbone of the transportation
industry. Valued for their power, fuel economy and durability, diesel powered trucks and buses are used
worldwide, however, they are heavy polluters and significantly contribute to global warming. Omnitek has
developed a system to convert any existing diesel engine to a clean-burning natural gas engine at a fraction of
the cost of a new engine. Omnitek estimates the population of heavy-duty diesel vehicles and stationary
engines around the world which can be converted using the Omnitek Diesel-to-Natural Gas Conversion
System and offer the best ROI approaching ten million engines.Prevailing economic factors, rising oil
prices and the real threat of global warming make abundantly available and inexpensive natural gas
the fuel for the future.
More evidence
The Boston Globe, 11-11-07, BUSINESS section; Pg. C1, “As oil prices spike, natural gas utilities find
opportunity For gas utilities, spiking oil prices offer opportunity”, LexisNexis, CM
Natural gas delivery companies say they have the answer: Convert to gas. The companies say that the
price of natural gas is significantly lower than heating oil right now and that switching to "green
natural gas technologies" will help prevent climate change. Steve Holliday, the chief executive of
National Grid PLC, the British company that recently purchased Keyspan Energy Delivery, the state's largest
gas utility, says his company's 53 percent market share in the Greater Boston area should be closer to 90
percent. "Natural gas is way out there as the cleanest fossil fuel there is," Holliday said. "There's a huge
opportunity here to clean things up by burning natural gas." In the struggle for supremacy in New
England between heating oil dealers and natural gas utilities, everything right now is going the way of
natural gas. Gas is cheaper, more versatile, more secure, and, by some measures, more environmentally
friendly.
SDI 2008 36
No Link- No Tradeoff
No tradeoff between natural gas and forms of renewable energy
No. 01-07, June, 2007
Despite the rapid growth projected for biofuels and other non-hydroelectric renewable energy sources
… oil, coal, and natural gas still are projected to provide roughly the same 86-percent share of the total
U.S. primary energy supply in 2030 that they did in 2005.
SDI 2008 37
No Link- Alt Cause

Weather conditions are central to the demand placed on the natural gas sector.
Melanie Tatum; Global Power Report, Section: North America: Forecasts; Pg. 23; January 31, 2008
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4226453779
&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4226453782&cisb=22_T42264537
81&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8146&docNo=5
Assuming normal weather, gas demand should rise by about 1.3 Bcf/d this year, thereby placing even
more pressure on domestic production and imports to keep up with demand, the analyst predicted.
Near-normal weather should increase both air-conditioning load and space-heating demand, while
several coal-fired plants amounting to around 20,000 MW are expected to have extended outages for
installation of environmental control equipment this year.
SDI 2008 38
Aff ! T/- Economy Module

A. High gas prices devastate the economy
No. 01-07, June, 2007
Natural-gas induced price spikes have been devastating to the U.S. economy. Because natural gas
accounts for nearly 90 percent of the cost of fertilizer, escalating natural gas prices in 2005 created
significant economic hardships for U.S. farmers. As well, some manufacturing and vindustrial
consumers that relied heavily on natural gas moved their facilities overseas. The U.S. petrochemical
industry, for example, relies on natural gas as a primary feedstock as well as for fuel. On February 17, 2004,
the Wall Street Journal reported that the petrochemical sector had lost approximately 78,000 jobs to foreign
plants where natural gas was much cheaper.76
B. Nuclear war.
Walter Russel Mead, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, 1992 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.
SDI 2008 39
Ext. Economy ! T/ Internal Link

High energy costs kill the US economy
Alan Lammey, Natural Gas Week, April 2, 2007, FEATURE STORIES; LC
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T4167316719
Alarm bells are going off everywhere regarding the state of the economy, from the crumbling subprime
mortgage market to growing concern from the US Federal Reserve over stout energy prices. And a sluggish
economy could take a toll on oil, and ultimately natural gas prices in the near future. "There's been a lot of
concern that troubles in the US housing sector could infect the broader domestic economy and dent demand
for energy," a gas futures trader in Houston said. "Historically, when the country slips into recession, the
price for oil and natural gas tends to fall." A direct link exists between energy costs and the economy.
When prices go up, businesses and consumers put more of their money into keeping the lights on and
keeping their gas tanks filled. That leaves less to spend on other goods and services, stifling growth.
Currently, high energy costs, growing consumer indebtedness, and now big troubles in the US housing
market are the main catalysts of concern. The most recent signal: A huge fallout in the mortgage industry, as
alarming numbers of subprime mortgage foreclosures were reported. While some economists think that the
economy will weather this storm, others think recession is now inevitable; but almost all view recent
economic events and intractably high energy costs with trepidation. "Last year, we saw prompt-month
gas futures fall down to the $4 area, and we weren't even in recession during that time. So if a full-blown
recession emerges, then that would seem reasonable. However, supply and demand issues for natural gas
will ultimately drive prices just like we've seen over years; but now we just have to add the recession
element to the equation."
More evidence
Matthew Warren, 9-29-07, Weekend Australian, The hottest of topics, lexis, bc
''If you put a cap in America ... on the electrical utility sector today, and it's very substantial, the only choice
the utility has actually is to go to natural gas and expand their renewable portfolio, but that will be relatively
incremental,'' Connaughton told journalists in Washington. ''America gobbling up even more natural gas
on the global marketplace is not just bad for our economy, it's bad for the global economy, especially in
countries many of which import a lot of natural gas and rely on that for their economic growth because
they don't have coal. What we need to do on power generation in America ... is pursue the research
agenda and with massive incentives.''
SDI 2008 40
Aff ! T/- Terrorism Module

A. LNG could potentially lead to terrorism in the U.S.
Cindy Hurst, political military research analyst with the Foreign Military Studies Office and Lieutenant
Commander in the United States Navy Reserve, June 30, 2008; LC
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is more than just a potential weapon of mass destruction in the right locale. It
also offers terrorists an awesome economic target wherever in the world it can be found--even on the
high seas. During a March 21, 2007 hearing, Congressman Bennie G. Thompson, of the second district of
Mississippi, observed that although it is important to consider the dangers of LNG, it is equally important to
try to assess the economic impacts that an LNG incident might incur. “…Terrorists would just as well like
to keep a port out of business for a week or two and that would be an absolutely significant incident…
So, I think part of our challenge is how we look at all the consequences associated with the handling of LNG.
Clearly, we want to know the hazards initially, but we also want to look at economic conditions that relate to
it.” The variables that would affect the economic impact are too numerous to make such a predetermined
calculation possible. Additionally, as time passes and the role of LNG grows worldwide, the potential
impact of a terrorist attack on these tankers or terminals increases. According to the Energy
Information Administration (EIA), LNG imports comprised only three percent of overall natural gas
consumption in the U.S. in 2005. Energy analysts expect LNG imports into the U.S. to increase by 8.7
percent annually through 2030. Emotion, whether positive or negative, can sway the stock market and
affect global pricing of energy and the economy. It is impossible to measure anticipated human
emotion. A small scale LNG leak could cause natural gas prices to spike temporarily before returning
to normal. A large-scale leak or attack that leads to human-casualties could cause prices to spike
severely and not return back to their original rates. Despite the unknown outcomes of human emotion,
it is critical and cannot be omitted from any potential calculation. Experts don’t agree fully on safety
boundaries. Empirical data demonstrating what would happen if there were to be an attack are
virtually non-existent. Because of this uncertainty, members of the public remain adamantly opposed
to bringing LNG with its foreign ships and crews into their “backyards,” perhaps rightly so. More studies
are needed to bring about sound conclusions and ensure the greatest possible degree of public safety, as well
as to ensure the security of an important commodity. Building a terminal offshore will certainly mitigate a
possible attack, as will enhanced security measures. However, despite the myriad security measures in
place, it would be difficult to thwart people willing to die to carry out an attack.
B. Extinction
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, “Extinction!” August 26-September 1 2004 , Issue no.
705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.hml
A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and
this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no
knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for
nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to
threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game.
We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a
terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state
like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD,
proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it
fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we
are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense
of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would
proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of
world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack
succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a
conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and
losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
SDI 2008 41
Ext. Terrorism ! T/ Internal Link (1/2)

Terrorism Likely With Natural Gas—Spiking Prices
David Wood, 5-7-07, Oil and Gas Journal, Supply diversity cuts risk exposure, lexis, bc
Events such as vessel collisions or terrorist attacks on LNG shipping in the Straits of Hormuz could
also have short-term effects on LNG supplies, causing price spikes for natural gas customers. Such
scenarios are not difficult to develop and suggest that dependence on a few very large LNG suppliers
would provide only limited security of supply for consumers. The US belief that building tens of new
regasification facilities in North America (Canada, US, and Mexico) will, on its own, solve the security of
supply issue misses part of the problem. Inadequate access to LNG shipping and strategic stocks of LNG
could cause future supply interruptions even with extensive onshore LNG regasification capacity in place.
LNG sites could be terrorist targets – the danger is real

Providence Journal 4 (Mark Reynolds, staffwriter, "Lloyd's executive likens LNG attack to nuclear explosion"
9-21-2004, www.projo.com/massachusetts/content/projo_20040921_ma21lng.134600.html AMK
Governor Romney, meanwhile, is asking for more time to study a proposed liquefied natural gas
facility in Fall River, saying federal regulators haven't adequately studied potential dangers posed by a
terrorist attack on a tanker. Romney sent a letter to FERC Secretary Magalie Salas yesterday, saying
terrorism must be considered as a possible threat. "There is simply no way that it makes sense to site
an LNG facility in this location in the post-911 world," Romney wrote. "A thorough review would
confirm this conclusion."
LNG is very dangerous and can be a WMD

Hurst, 8 – political-military research analyst with the Foreign Military Studies Office and a Lieutenant
Commander in the United States Navy Reserve (Cindy, Spero News, "Terrorism threatens natural gas supply;
Liquified natural gas tankers on the world's oceans remain as giant terror targets. A weapon of mass destruction?
Maybe," 6-17-2008,
Can Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) be used as a lethal weapon of mass destruction? That question lies
at the heart of the debate about increasing use of this important energy resource. The answers are not
reassuring. Nor are the questions. Certainly, 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. A number of known vulnerabilities exist within the LNG industry. These vulnerabilities
lie in the human factor. In other words, LNG ships and tankers are structurally sound. The potential for problems lies within the
people who are somehow involved in the industry. Inadequate vetting of crews LNG shipments often originate
from politically unstable and unfriendly countries and regions. Some of the locations in which LNG
originates include Qatar, Nigeria, Algeria and Egypt. “It’s the location of the ports, and where the
LNG is loaded, and who gets on the vessel [that is important]," said William Doyle, Deputy General Counsel of the
Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association (MEBA). Many ships operate under grossly unregulated “open registry”
or “flags of convenience” registries and often originate from ports with poor security systems in place.
Due to a lack of any meaningful international regulatory oversight, it would be possible for someone to work under a different identity
on board one of these tankers and avoid detection. Under the current system, no completely trustworthy and uniform system is in place
for vetting foreign mariners. Background checks are conducted on Americans by the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA). However, these same background checks are not performed on foreign crews. The Coast Guard does, on the other
hand, require crew lists from all vessels entering U.S. ports. Unfortunately, no method is in place to ensure these crews are who they
claim to be. Although this is an issue of security for all cargo ships, it is even more critical for ships carrying potentially
dangerous cargo, such as LNG.
SDI 2008 42
Ext. Terrorism ! T/ Internal Link (2/2)

LNG provides a target for terrorist attacks.
Kaplan, 6- Associate Editor of the Council on Foreign Relations February 27, 2006. Eben, "Liquefied Natural
Gas: A Potential Terrorist Target?", http://www.cfr.org/publication/9810/. AP.
Are LNG ships and terminals potential terrorist targets? Yes, because of LNG's explosive potential,
experts say. Al-Qaeda, for example, has specifically cited LNG as a desirable target, says Rob Knake, senior
associate at Good Harbor Consulting, LLC, a homeland-security private consulting firm. Pipelines are not as attractive because the flow
of gas can quickly be cut off and an explosion easily contained. Terminals make better targets because an attack could
result in a massive fire that could potentially kill scores of people. They are also good targets because "if you take
out those terminals, you could have a significant disruption [in the U.S. gas supply,]" Knake says. But an attack on an LNG terminal
might not be so damaging. Terminals are equipped with emergency fire detection mechanisms designed to minimize the impact of fires
resulting from terrorist attacks or accidents. The most attractive targets are the boats: 1,000-foot tankers with double hulls and specially
constructed storage tanks that keep the LNG cold. A report, put out by Good Harbor Consulting assessing the risk of a proposed LNG
terminal in Providence, Rhode Island, concluded that a successful terrorist attack on a tanker could result in as
many as 8,000 deaths and upwards of 20,000 injuries. It is important to keep in mind that this is the worst case
scenario. A report on LNG safety and security by the University of Texas' Center for Energy and Economics explains LNG "tanks
require exceptionally large amounts of force to cause damage. Because the amount of energy required to breach containment is so large,
in almost all cases the major hazard presented by terrorists is a fire, not an explosion." The Sandia National Laboratories report assesses
four potential ways terrorists may target an LNG tanker and the worst potential outcomes: Ramming: Terrorists may attempt to drive
another vessel into an LNG tanker or to divert a tanker into a stationary object. Unless the tanker is struck at a very high speed or the
object striking it is very sharp, it is unlikely that a breach of the hull will occur. However, if such a breach did occur, there is a
chance LNG would spill out and cause a massive fire. Triggered Explosion: Explosives, such as mines,
may be placed in the path of an LNG tanker or on the tanker itself. If powerful enough, such an
explosion could cause the cargo to spill and ignite. External Attack: There are several ways terrorists
may attempt to assault an LNG tanker. The 2000 U.S.S. Cole attack, in which terrorists detonated
explosives after pulling alongside the warship in a small vessel, is often cited as an example of such an
attack. Other possible methods of attack include firing missiles or rocket-propelled grenades at a
tanker and or air strikes. Tankers are particularly vulnerable as they traverse inland waterways en route to
their destinations. The impact of an assault would vary depending on the size and location of the attack,
the worst-case scenario being a massive explosion. Hijacking: The most catastrophic scenario involving
an LNG tanker involves terrorists taking control of an LNG tanker, sailing it toward a major
population area and detonating the cargo.
SDI 2008 43
Aff ! T/ Safety
Accidents will occur and are highly dangerous
Ewall, 07 – founder and director of Energy Justice Network. (Mike, "FACT SHEET:Liquefied Natural Gas
(LNG)" November 2007. http://www.energyjustice.net/naturalgas/lngfact sheet.pdf) //DG
Accidents Terrorism isn’t the only risk. LNG carries an inherent risk of accidents, as do all industrial
facilities. LNG’s properties make it uniquely dangerous if there were to be a spill or fire. According
to a December 2004 report by Sandia National Laboratory,14 an accident or terrorist attack on a
liquefied natural gas tanker could cause “major injuries and significant damage to structures” a third
of a mile away and could cause second-degree burns on people more than a mile away. A “worst case
scenario” could set structures aflame out to 2,067 feet and burn people as far as 6,949 feet away. The
report’s idea of “worst case” didn’t include the actual worst case, failing to study larger ships that are
planned and assuming that only some of the LNG tanker contents are released. FERC allows
damaging thermal radiation beyond the site boundary as long as its level is below 5 kilowatts per
square meter. However, it is not until the thermal radiation intensity falls below 1.6 kilowatts per
square meter that there is no damage to exposed humans.15
An LNG attack would be like a nuclear bomb going off, injuring many
A terrorist attack on an LNG tanker "would have the force of a small nuclear explosion," according to
the chairman of Lloyd's, a British insurer of natural gas port facilities like the ones being proposed in Fall
River and Providence. The assertion, which is contested by industry experts, was in a speech that the
chairman, Peter Levene, delivered last night to business leaders in Houston. Levene described Texas as a
"state at risk" and said that securing its remote oil facilities is a "particular challenge." "Gas carriers
too, whether at sea or in ports, make obvious targets," said Levene. "Specialists reckon that a terrorist
attack on an LNG tanker would have the force of a small nuclear explosion."
LNG explosions could lead to massive fires and intense burns, even from far distances
One report does describe hypothetical fires that might erupt if gas leaks from a tanker in its liquid
form changes into a gaseous form and ignites when it comes into contact with a flame. In one instance,
the blaze, in less than a minute, would be capable of inflicting third-degree burns a little less than a
mile away. Bryan Lee, a spokesman for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said federal regulators
have not changed their analysis. "Just about any expert will come up with a different assessment regarding
LNG depending on the parameters and assumptions they have," said Lee, who emphasized the LNG shipping
industry's safe track record. Regulators, he said, will review the safety of different LNG proposals on a case-
by-case basis. "We stand by all of our analysis on this matter," he said.
SDI 2008 44
Aff ! T/- Environment Module

A. LNG hurts environment through reducing innovation and causing ecosystem
destruction
Greenparty, 4 ("LNG: The Next Battle Line," Reprinted from Synthesis/Regeneration #35, Fall 2004,
www.greenparty.org/LNG.html)
Opposition to LNG terminal construction is more than "not-in-my-backyard." Any increase the
United States' dependency on foreign fossil fuels can only intensify the nation's existing imperialistic
politics. Furthermore, the greatly stepped-up pace of natural gas extraction outside the US envisioned
by LNG proponents threatens native ecosystems around the world. In Bolivia ( with gas reserves of
52.3 trillion cubic feet ), two in-the-works projects, Yabog and Gasyrg, will open forest ecosystems to
commercial exploitation and Pacific LNG (a consortium made-up of British Gas Group, BP-Amoco, Bridas, and Spain's Repsol-
YPF) plans to construct a 700 km pipeline from Bolivia to a port in Chile from which LNG will be shipped to a Baja California terminal
proposed by the American corporation Sempra, a project hardly popular with the Bolivian people. On October 17, 2003, Bolivia's
President, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, was forced to resign from office and flee to Miami after tens of
thousands of workers, farmers and indigenous people marched on the Capital in protest of Lozada's
give-away of Bolivian resources. 74 protesters were killed. Bolivia's unemployment rate is 30% and
70% of Bolivians live in poverty. Some Greens have hesitated to come out strongly against LNG for fear this will slow down
conversion of "dirty" coal-fueled to "clean" gas-fueled power plant. Here we see the shallowness of Green reformism. Aside from
the issue of how clean mass methane-fueled generation really is-or how large the world's fossil gas
reserve really is-not to oppose LNG construction is to forego one of the few opportunities available to
move society to the mass conversion to solar energy that Greens have supposedly always as a principal
goal. The new role for LNG forced on the ruling class by the depletion of US domestic wells in fact offers the same leverage for
activism that opposition to nuclear power did in the 1970s. With fossil fuel reserves moving towards peak and decline around the world
( whatever time frame one accepts ), resistance to anything less than full conversion to democratically controlled renewable energy will,
in effect, eat up the time global corporations have to work out plans for conversion to mass coal burning, plutonium breeder reactors, or (
if it is ever possible ) fusion power, all of which are intrinsically centralized, exploitative technologies. Here, in other words, is an area
where decentralized, peoples' resistance-such as the Green movement has pioneered-can have an effect on a much wider social field than
that of the immediate points of confrontation, in fact on the nature of our total future society. In this sense, the LNG issue has the
potential to be the next major battle line.
B. Extinction
David N. Diner (Judge Advocate General’s Corps of US Army) 1994 Military Law Review, Lexis
No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death --
extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a single-
minded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. n67 In
past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new
species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all
animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the
point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many
[*171] species the world needs to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct --
would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the
value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide
additional ecological services -- pollution control, n70 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use
of species for research into the physical processes of the world. n72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is
the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species
that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not
most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species
negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. n75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new
extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As
the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and
Biologically diverse ecosystems are
within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications.
characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems
inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . .
[l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple,
unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans
have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of
ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are
relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant
extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse
and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing,
one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
SDI 2008 45
Ext. Environment ! T/ Internal Link

Natural gas production results in loss of ecosystems
No. 01-07, June, 2007
In addition to the environmental damage caused by fossil fuel combustion, the production o fossil fuels and
uranium – the drilling, mining, processing and transportation – produces substantial amount of pollution and
toxic waste. In the United States, there are more than 150 refineries, 4,000 offshore platforms, 410
underground gas storage fields, 125 nuclear waste storage facilities, 160,000 miles of oil pipelines, and1.4
million miles of natural gas pipelines. Each can degrade their surrounding environment and negatively
impact the health and safety of Americans.
More evidence
No. 01-07, June, 2007
Oil and natural gas storage facilities, in addition to significantly adding to the cost of natural gas and oil
infrastructure, are susceptible to serious accidents that can pollute the air and water of local
communities. One report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory noted that leaks can occur
due to improper well design, construction, maintenance, operation.320 The report cautioned that
leakage from natural gas storage structures can be especially hazardous when they cause natural gas
to migrate into drinking-water aquifers or escape to the surface, creating a “significant safety risk.”
Leaked natural gas can significantly endanger life and property, water resources, vegetation, and
crops.321
SDI 2008 46
Aff AT: Levene

Their expert Levene is denied – his evidence is false and biased
Levene did not name the specialists in his remarks, although a text of his speech contains a footnote. The
footnote attributes the observation to the author of an article posted, in an abbreviated form, on the Web site
of Jane's Terrorism and Security Monitor in July. The same abstract, apparently authored by the same person,
Dr. J.C.K. Daly, was also posted on the Internet weblog Talk Show American. Levene also did not specify
Texas LNG port facilities and tanker ships that might be at risk. Records kept by federal regulators
show that several LNG port facilities have been proposed in Texas. They do not show any existing
facilities. Levene's company, Lloyd's, is the world's second-largest commercial insurer. The chairman
could not be reached for comment yesterday. Some critics of the proposal in Fall River have spoken in
apocalyptic terms of potential LNG disasters. But to date, no official reports by government
regulators have made comparisons between the various LNG catastrophes that experts have
hypothesized and destruction from an atomic bomb.
SDI 2008 47
AT: The Coastguard can Solve

The Coast Guard will not be able to protect the natural gas imported to the U.S.
Natural Gas Week, 8 (John A. Sullivan, "GAO Report: LNG Tankers Remain Vulnerable; CG Said Unprepared,"
January 14, 2008, lexis) –CMM
The seaborne supply chain bringing natural gas to the US is becoming even more exposed to terrorist
attack and disruptions and the very agency charged with defending the nation's ports and harbors is
getting stretched dangerously thin. That was the conclusion of a US Government Accountability Office
report released last week that challenged the nation's ability to protect its energy supply chain. In particular,
the GAO report said the Coast Guard cannot meet its own requirements for protecting either LNG
carriers or oil tankers entering US waters. "A lack of resources has hindered some Coast Guard units
from meeting their self-imposed requirements for security activities, such as escorts and boardings ,"
according to the GAO report. For fiscal year 2006, the Coast Guard allocated four new ships for LNG
security, but no requests were made for additional resources in 2007 or FY 2008. According to the federal
Energy Information Administration, two LNG-laden tankers arrive at one of five US terminals every three
days, but that number is expected to quadruple by 2015 as demand grows and more receiving capacity opens.
The Department of Energy predicts that the US will have to increase natural gas imports by 600% over the
next 25 years to meet demand. LNG is expected to play a large role in that, with imports projected to increase
eight-fold to 4.4 trillion cubic feet per year. "These increased demands could cause the Coast Guard to
continue to be unable to meet the standards it has set for keeping US ports secure," the GAO said. "We have
received the report and are currently reviewing it," Coast Guard spokeswoman Angela Hirsch told Natural
Gas Week . "LNG tankers are some of the most heavily regulated and closely guarded vessels that come
into any port in the US ," Hirsch said. "There are already very strong protocols that the Coast Guard
has. These are in place and are being followed." Some of those security measures include the LNG
tankers being escorted from the harbor entrance to the terminal by armed Coast Guard vessels. Other
security measures include shutting down the port to any other traffic hours before the LNG carrier
arrives and keeping an exclusion zone around the vessel while it is offloading its cargo. According to the
GAO, the fact that new LNG terminals -- particularly along the US Gulf Coast -- are being built and
scheduled to begin coming online in several years, is the main reason that red flags are being raised
about the Coast Guard. "Some units' workloads are likely to grow as new liquefied natural gas
facilities are added," according to the GAO. "Coast Guard headquarters has not developed plans for
shifting resources among units." The GAO said that while there are multiple response plans in place to deal
with an attack on a vessel or LNG facility, stakeholders face three main challenges in making them work. The
first is dealing with a spill and a terrorist threat. Ports, facilities and emergency service agencies plan and
prepare for both, but not together. The second is strictly economic, as "ports generally lack plans for dealing
with economic issues, such as prioritizing the movement of vessels after a port reopens." The third challenge
is "some ports report difficulty in securing response resources" needed to respond to either a manmade or
natural disaster. A similar GAO report in March led to a hearing by the congressional Committee on
Homeland Security. During that hearing, USCG Rear Adm. Brian Salerno testified that of the 40,000 LNG
shipments delivered worldwide since 1959, no breaches of cargo tanks have occurred and of the 30 LNG
tanker incidents that have happened since 2002, all were minor and none involved the loss of the ship or its
cargo.

WHAM Natural Gas DA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WHAM Natural Gas DA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SDI 2008 1

WHAM! Natural Gas DA

Natural Gas DA Index

Aff ! T/- Economy Module......................................38

1NC Natural Gas DA (1/3)

C. Renewable energy reduces natural gas demand from Qatar

1NC Natural Gas DA (2/3)

1NC Natural Gas DA (3/3)

Ext. Demand High

Demand for natural gas is high and rising.

Link- General (1/2)

Renewable Energy will have a large impact on natural gas

Renewable energy will have an impact on natural gas

Link- General (2/2)

Energy efficiency will reduce LNG use

RPS would remove the need for natural gas.

Wind power could viably replace natural gas

Wind power could replace natural gas

Link- Nuclear Power (1/2)

Nuclear energy reduces natural gas dependence

Nuclear energy reduces natural gas demand.

Link- Nuclear Power (2/2)

Nuclear power would reduce natural gas demand

Ext. US Key to Qatar

US it the vital market for Qatar natural gas.

Ext. LNG Key to US/Qatar

Ext. Heg Internal Link

Middle East War !

Ext. Middle East War Internal Link

AT: Qatar Corrupt/Econ not liberalized

AT: Domestic Reserves Solve

North American LNG won’t be enough to keep up.

AT: Offshore Drilling Solves

AT: Canada Solves

US-Qatar Relations Strong

US-Qatar relations high- defense cooperation

B. Oil dependence causes terrorist attacks.

AT: Impact Turns

AT: Natural Gas Unsafe

AT: Terrorism Turn

The risk of a terrorist attack because of LNG is not likely.

AT: Hurst Turns

AT: Iran LNG

Natural Gas Solves the Aff Better- Warming (1/2)

Natural Gas Solves the Aff Better- Warming (2/2)

No Link- Alt Cause

Aff ! T/- Economy Module

Ext. Economy ! T/ Internal Link

Aff ! T/- Terrorism Module

Ext. Terrorism ! T/ Internal Link (1/2)

LNG sites could be terrorist targets – the danger is real

LNG is very dangerous and can be a WMD

Ext. Terrorism ! T/ Internal Link (2/2)

Aff ! T/- Environment Module

Ext. Environment ! T/ Internal Link

Aff AT: Levene

AT: The Coastguard can Solve

You might also like