Natural Gas Disad

Natural Gas DA Emory Debate
Georgia Novice Packet jh

Index
Index............................................................................................................................................................................................................1
1nc shell [1/3]..............................................................................................................................................................................................2
1nc shell [2/3]..............................................................................................................................................................................................3
1nc shell [3/3]..............................................................................................................................................................................................4
Uniq – Russia Natural Gas revenue increasing............................................................................................................................................5
Uniq – US/Russian Relations High..............................................................................................................................................................6
Uniq – Russia Econ Good............................................................................................................................................................................7
Link – renewable energy..............................................................................................................................................................................8
Link – RPS...................................................................................................................................................................................................9
Link – RPS.................................................................................................................................................................................................10
Link – Solar power Satellites.....................................................................................................................................................................11
Link – Solar Power....................................................................................................................................................................................12
Link – Wind...............................................................................................................................................................................................13
Link - Wind................................................................................................................................................................................................14
IL – natural gas key to relations.................................................................................................................................................................15
IL – natural gas key to US/Russian relations.............................................................................................................................................16
IL – US key global market.........................................................................................................................................................................17
IL – US key to Russian Market..................................................................................................................................................................18
IL – A2 Europe key market........................................................................................................................................................................19
IL – changes in one country  global changes.........................................................................................................................................20
Impact - Russia Econ.................................................................................................................................................................................21
Impact – Relations key to Heg...................................................................................................................................................................22
Impact – Relations stop a China War.........................................................................................................................................................23
Russia shipments safe................................................................................................................................................................................24
A2 – Accidents...........................................................................................................................................................................................25
A2 – terrorism............................................................................................................................................................................................26
A2 – terrorism............................................................................................................................................................................................27
N/U – imports to US decreasing................................................................................................................................................................28
N/U – relations low....................................................................................................................................................................................29
No Link – RPS...........................................................................................................................................................................................30
No IL – US not key market for Russia.......................................................................................................................................................31
No IL – Europe key market........................................................................................................................................................................32
No IL – US not key market........................................................................................................................................................................33
No Mpx – Russia won’t let them collapse.................................................................................................................................................34
Terrorism Turn...........................................................................................................................................................................................35
Coast Guard overstretched.........................................................................................................................................................................36
LNG imports = more attacks.....................................................................................................................................................................37
Current Efforts fail.....................................................................................................................................................................................38
Accidents Turn ..........................................................................................................................................................................................39
LNG isn’t being made safe........................................................................................................................................................................40
EXPLANATION
Pretty simple Disad. The plan decreases our dependence on natural gas imports from Russia. That’s key to US/Russian relations. The
impact is big. I included impact turns and answers to all the parts of the disad.
Hopefully, this is a little bit better of a link to Solar Powered Satellites, although it is still not great. The link cards are good though
that SPS would decrease natural gas imports. The negative should argue that the perception of a decrease
1
1nc shell [1/3]
A. Russian Gazprom sees the U.S. gas market as a key focal point for future exports – it wants to reduce dependence on
Europe
Global Insight Daily Analysis 2k8
(“Gazprom Targets Growth in U.S. Gas Market; Sakhalin-2 LNG Exports Delayed Until 2009,” 4/24/08 Global Insight Limited, Factiva)
Alexander Medvedev, the head of Gazprom's export arm, Gazpromexport, told reporters yesterday that the Russian gas giant is aiming
to become a significant gas supplier to the United States. Medvedev—the lesser-known of the two high-profile Medvedevs in senior
positions at Gazprom (Dmitri, who is unrelated to Alexander, is the chairman of Gazprom and also happens to the president-elect of
Russia)—said that Gazprom considers the United States, and the North American market in general, as "one of the most promising in
view of the growing demand for natural gas as well as the situation with local production." In other words, the size of the U.S. gas
market, together with the rising gap between U.S. gas consumption and its domestic gas production, makes the United States a
lucrative target on which Gazprom is setting its sights for its gas exports.
With European government officials becoming more strident in their criticism of Gazprom, pursuing policies geared to diversify the
continent's gas suppliers and stem growing reliance on Russian gas, Gazprom itself is taking a long-term approach to its customer
base, looking to reduce its heavy dependence on Europe as a market for its gas. Even as European companies themselves are slowly
boosting co-operation with Gazprom, both sides are publicly looking to diversify their gas trading partners, all the while seeking to
improve reliability of Russian supplies and guarantee long-term markets. Hence, Gazprom is talking up its potential to supply gas to
North America as well as Asia. Medvedev said yesterday that gas extracted from the massive Shtokman gas field in the Barents Sea
could be liquefied and sent to the United States as LNG, but he added that Gazprom could realise its gas export potential to the United
States "not only from Shtokman but from the Yamal Peninsula and Sakhalin-2."
B. Diversifying energy supplies with renewable energy will directly reduce natural gas prices and dependence
Dr. Wiser 05 –Scientists and Policy Group at Lawrence
(Ryan “Easing the Natural Gas Crisis: Reducing Natural Gas Prices Through Electricity Supply Diversification Testimony Prepared for a Hearing on Power Generation Resource
Incentives & Diversity Standards” Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 3-5-2005, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/Senate-Testimony.pdf)
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.
Our report highlights the impact of increased deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency on natural gas prices and
consumer natural gas bills. A growing number of modeling studies conducted by government, non-profit, and private sector entities
are showing that renewable energy and energy efficiency could significantly reduce natural gas prices and bills. Our report
summarizes these recent modeling studies and reviews the reasonableness of their findings in light of economic theory and other
analyses. (Though our report focuses on renewable energy and energy efficiency, other non-natural-gas resources would likely have a
similar effect).
We find that, by displacing natural-gas-fired electricity generation, increased levels of renewable energy and energy efficiency will
reduce demand for natural gas and thus put downward pressure on gas prices. These price reductions hold the prospect of providing
consumers with significant natural gas bill savings. In fact, although we did not analyze in detail the electricity price impacts reported
in the studies, the studies often show that any predicted increase in the price of electricity caused by greater use of renewable energy
or energy efficiency is largely or completely offset by the predicted natural gas price savings. We conclude that policies to encourage
fuel diversification within the electricity sector should consider the potentially beneficial cross-sector impact of that diversification on
natural gas prices and bills.
2
1nc shell [2/3]
C. Cooperation on the export of natural gas is a critical to advance overall US – Russian relations
America.gov 2k5
(“Russia, United States Seek To Intensify Energy Cooperation,” 2/24/05 http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-
english/2005/February/20050224142819SAikceinawz0.4095423.html)
Russia, United States Seek To Intensify Energy Cooperation

Pipeline system, liquefied natural gas viewed as areas of interest
The United States and Russia have pledged to intensify their cooperation on removing barriers to energy trade and investment and
other issues through the existing energy dialogue.
President Bush and President Putin said in a joint statement issued after their February 24 meeting in Bratislava, the Slovak Republic, that they want U.S. and Russian
officials to develop recommendations and specific proposals in areas of energy security, transparency, commercial energy partnerships
and energy-related environmental problems.
The statement cited support for the expansion of the pipeline system and liquefied natural gas capacity in Russia with a view that such
enhancements, together with a more transparent business and investment environment, will help increase Russian oil and gas exports
to the U.S. and other markets.
At a news conference following the meeting Putin said: “In the years 2010, 2011, a large amount of liquefied natural gas can be supplied from Russia
to the United States.”
Several energy projects should be initiated no later than 2008, the statement said.
According to the U.S. Energy Department's Energy Information Administration, Russia has the world's largest natural gas reserves and the eighth-largest
reserve of proven crude oil.
The original 2002 joint statement of the two leaders in which they launched the U.S.-Russia Energy Dialogue can be viewed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020524-
8.html.
Following is the text of the 2005 joint statement:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Bratislava, Slovak Republic)
February 24, 2005
Joint statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin
U.S.-RUSSIAN ENERGY COOPERATION
Cooperation on energy issues remains an area of great promise for U.S.-Russian relations. We will work further to realize the vision
for our energy cooperation in all aspects described in our statement in May 2002, including through the mechanisms of the Commercial Energy Dialogue and
the Energy Working Group. Accordingly, we have instructed our ministers to continue their energy dialogue, concentrating on ways to enhance
energy security, diversify energy supplies, improve the transparency of the business and investment environment, reduce obstacles to
increased commercial energy partnerships, and develop resources in an environmentally safe manner.
We call upon our Ministers of Energy and Commerce to develop recommendations, which we can support at one of our upcoming meetings, on how to further intensify and develop our energy
dialogue. Those recommendations will focus on identifying barriers to energy trade and investment, promoting initiatives to remove them on the basis of predictability, fairness and law, and
suggesting specific proposals for cooperating in developing energy trade and investment.
We will promote the creation of transparent tax, legal, regulatory, and contractual conditions for our companies' cooperation, and support Russia's pipeline system
development, which will create the preconditions for increasing deliveries of oil and gas export, including to the U.S. market.
We are interested in increasing U.S. commercial investment in Russia, so as to create additional capacity for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in
Russia, and also with the aim of increasing LNG exports to U.S. markets. We would welcome increased Russian oil exports to the
world market and an increased presence of imports from Russia in the United States. We would also welcome expanding mutual investments in the energy
sectors of both countries.
3
1nc shell [3/3]
Strong US- Russian relations are necessary to access pretty much ever major impact imaginable
Nixon Center 2k3
(“Advancing American Interests and the U.S.-Russian Relationship: INTERIM REPORT,” SEPTEMBER 2K3
HTTP://WWW.NIXONCENTER.ORG/PUBLICATIONS/MONOGRAPHS/FR.HTM)
The proper starting point in thinking about American national interests and Russia—or any other country—is the candid question: why
does Russia matter? How can Russia affect vital American interests and how much should the United States care about Russia?
Where does it rank in the hierarchy of American national interests?
As the Report of the Commission on American National Interests (2000) concluded, Russia ranks among the few countries whose
actions powerfully affect American vital interests. Why?
§ First, Russia is a very large country linking several strategically important regions. By virtue of its size and location, Russia is a key
player in Europe as well as the Middle East and Central, South and East Asia. Accordingly, Moscow can substantially contribute to, or
detract from, U.S. efforts to deal with such urgent challenges as North Korea and Iran, as well as important longer term problems like
Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, Russia shares the world’s longest land border with China, an emerging great power that can have a
major impact on both U.S. and Russian interests. The bottom line is that notwithstanding its significant loss of power after the end of
the Cold War, Moscow’s geopolitical weight still exceeds that of London or Paris.
§ Second, as a result of its Soviet legacy, Russia has relationships with and information about countries that remain comparatively
inaccessible to the American government, in the Middle East, Central Asia and elsewhere. Russian intelligence and/or leverage in
these areas could significantly aid the United States in its efforts to deal with current, emerging and still unforeseen strategic
challenges, including in the war on terrorism.
§ Third, today and for the foreseeable future Russia’s nuclear arsenal will be capable of inflicting vast damage on the United States.
Fortunately, the likelihood of such scenarios has declined dramatically since the Cold War. But today and as far as any eye can see the
U.S. will have an enduring vital interest in these weapons not being used against America or our allies.
§ Fourth, reliable Russian stewardship and control of the largest arsenal of nuclear warheads and stockpile of nuclear materials from
which nuclear weapons could be made is essential in combating the threat of “loose nukes.” The United States has a vital interest in
effective Russian programs to prevent weapons being stolen by criminals, sold to terrorists and used to kill Americans.
§ Fifth, Russian stockpiles, technologies and knowledge for creating biological and chemical weapons make cooperation with
Moscow very important to U.S. efforts to prevent proliferation of these weapons. Working with Russia may similarly help to prevent
states hostile to the United States from obtaining sophisticated conventional weapons systems, such as missiles and submarines.
§ Sixth, as the world’s largest producer and exporter of hydrocarbons (oil and gas), Russia offers America an opportunity to diversify
and increase supplies of non-OPEC, non-Mid-Eastern energy.
§ Seventh, as a veto-wielding permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, Russia can substantially ease, or complicate,
American attempts to work through the UN and other international institutions to advance other vital and extremely important U.S.
interests. In a world in which many are already concerned about the use of U.S. power, this can have a real impact on America’s
success at providing global leadership. More broadly, a close U.S.-Russian relationship can limit other states’ behavior by effectively
eliminating Moscow as a potential source of political support.
4
Uniq – Russia Natural Gas revenue increasing
Russia’s natural gas export revenue will increase in 2008

WSJ, 8 (“OAO Gazprom: Export Revenue to Rise From Growing Demand,” 6-19-2008, Proquest)
Russian state gas company OAO Gazprom expects its 2008 export revenue to reach $71.6 billion, up 60% from last year, Gazprom
Deputy Chief Executive Alexander Medvedev said. In 2007, Gazprom's export sales totaled $44.8 billion. Gazprom, the world's
largest exporter of natural gas, last year accounted for about a quarter of global exports and 40% of imports to Western and Central
Europe, the company said. Natural-gas export prices are increasing with rising demand, particularly in developing countries, it added.
Gazprom expects this year's exports outside the former Soviet Union to total 163 billion cubic meters, at an average price of $401 per
1,000 cubic meters. Within the former Soviet Union, sales of 50 billion cubic meters will bring in $7.6 billion -- up from $5.4 billion
off exports of nearly 55 billion cubic meters in 2007.
5
Uniq – US/Russian Relations High
Our evidence subsumes missile defesne- cooperation sustains relations.

Reuters 7/9 (“US: Will keep talking with Russia on missile shield,” 7/9/08
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKT8969620080709
TOYAKO, Japan (Reuters) - The United States will continue its dialogue with Russia on a missile defence shield, the White House
said on Wednesday after Moscow warned it would use military means if the shield were deployed close to its borders.
President George W. Bush has told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that the United States seeks "strategic cooperation on
preventing missiles from rogue nations, like Iran, from threatening our friends and allies," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe
said in Japan, where the leaders are attending a G8 summit.
"We want to design a system between the United States, Russia and Europe, with everyone participating as equal partners," Johndroe
said.
"We will continue to have a dialogue with the Russians on this matter as Presidents Bush and Medvedev reaffirmed this week in their
meeting in Japan," he said.
6
Uniq – Russia Econ Good
Russian economic expansion continues

IHT 7/10 (“Resolving a credibility problem, 7/10/08 http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/10/opinion/edpetersen.php)
In the shadow of the Group of 8 summit meeting this week and renewed questions about Russian membership in the club, President
Dmitri Medvedev took another opportunity to reinforce the theme of a "new" Russia that is a global force to be reckoned with.
Medvedev stressed that "one of the most pressing problems" in Russia is corruption. "All the procedures that exist in our country," he
said, "should be legal and based on our procedural and criminal law."
Russia has a right to be respected, and Medvedev's push back on calls for Russia's removal from the G-8 is understandable, given that
the group's members are suffering from the worst economic conditions in recent memory.
Nevertheless, as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility. While Russia's economy continues its rapid expansion
(estimates put GDP growth for 2008 at close to 7 percent), Moscow's demand for a greater voice in the international economic and
political spheres must be placed in the context of its own struggles for internal adherence to the rule of law. While Moscow's criticism
of the United States, Europe and Japan may not be unwarranted, it overlooks the fact that these countries continue to operate within
reasonably predictable legal and regulatory systems.
Investor confidence proves Russian economic growth will outlive slowdowns.

Kvint, 8 (Vladimir, president of the International Academy of Emerging Markets) Russia's Surging Economy, Forbes, 1/08/08
http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/08/russia-economy-projections-oped-cx_vkv_0108russia.html)
With the firm belief that, especially in Russia, past is prologue, the first and most important economic trend of 2007 was that nation's
continued political and economic stability. This has made possible, and will continue to enable, reliable forecasts of economic trends,
and has attracted a great deal of foreign investment in Russia.
Such an ongoing process has also caused Russian entrepreneurs to maintain and increase their domestic investments, rather than invest
abroad, as they did before. Moreover, it has resulted in job creation and stimulated economic growth, which is now approaching 8%.
Which indicators are proving the increasing stability and predictability of the Russian economy? First, there's the unprecedented rate
of growth of foreign investment, which surged by a factor of 2.5 in 2007. None of the world's 15 leading national economies can
compete with this achievement. Some $100 billion was invested in Russia from abroad over the last 12 months, an all-time record for
any emerging market country and a milestone of great historical and psychological significance for Russian business.
Although, in general, the outflow of foreign direct investment has decreased, this trend began to reverse over the last six months. This
is a direct response to the economic policies of Putin's government beginning to worry investors. Nonetheless, cumulative foreign
direct investment increased by 55%. Most of these investments are long-term. The increase in foreign investment and of cumulative
FDI in the real sector of the Russian economy are major economic events of 2007, and promise to continue this year.
7
Link – renewable energy
13 reports prove that expanding renewables will reduce natural gas prices
Dr. Wiser 05 –Scientists and Policy Group at Lawrence
(Ryan “Easing the Natural Gas Crisis: Reducing Natural Gas Prices Through Electricity Supply Diversification Testimony Prepared for a Hearing on Power Generation Resource
Incentives & Diversity Standards” Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 3-5-2005, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/Senate-Testimony.pdf)
Elevated natural gas prices have emerged as a key energy-policy challenge for at least the early part of the 21st century. While our
nation will continue to rely on natural gas, most agree that both supply-side and demand-side actions will likely be necessary to
moderate prices. Focusing on just the demand side, our study has found that increased diversification of energy supplies should help to
alleviate the threat of high natural gas prices over the short and long term, thereby reducing consumer natural gas bills.
The thirteen studies and twenty specific modeling analyses reviewed in our report consistently show that increased use of renewable
energy and energy efficiency can begin to reduce natural gas prices. Our report is the first to demonstrate that these results are broadly
consistent with economic theory, results from other national energy models, and limited empirical evidence.
Renewable energy reduces demand and price of natural gas

UCS 05 (Union of Concerned Scientists, “Renewable Energy Can Help Ease Natural Gas Crunch”, August 26,
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/renewable-energy-can-help-ease-natural-gas-crunch.html)
Renewable energy can reduce gas and electricity prices

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.
The analysis found that a 10 percent renewable standard would decrease electricity prices throughout the study period. Under a 20
percent standard, electricity prices would be lower than business as usual through 2018. Between 2019 and 2025, as renewable energy
displaced more coal, electricity prices would increase slightly (7.0 ¢/kWh) compared to business as usual (6.9 ¢/kWh). Electricity
prices under a 20 percent RES would still be 1.7 percent lower in 2025 compared to today’s prices. Cumulative electricity bill savings
would reach $10.9 billion through 2025.
New renewable energy policies will displace Liquefied Natural gas

UCS 7 (Union of concerned Scientists, “Renewable Electricity Standard FAQ”
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/the-renewable-electricity-standard.html#6)
How would the RES affect national energy security?

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.
8
Link – RPS
RPS will reduce LNGs imports
Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal, “The
Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, lexis-nexis)
In response to high gas prices, and the declining productivity of North American gas wells, EIA projects imports of liquefied natural
gas (LNG) to increase more than seven-fold over the next 20 years.26 This trend threatens to push the U.S. down the same troubled
road of rising dependence on imported gas that has been followed for oil. By reducing the demand for natural gas, renewable energy
can reduce imports.
An RPS would significantly drop dependence on liquefied natural gas

Sterzinger 2 – Executive Director, Renewable Energy Policy Project
(George, “Energy: Maximizing Resources; Meeting Our Needs; Retaining Jobs” June 17, 2002 http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/binaries/repp_testimony_boston.pdf)
The specific EIA analysis, which was conservative in the technology assumptions and a number of other features, nevertheless showed overall energy bill declining as a result of the renewable
development. With a 10% RPS, renewable energy will displace natural; gas and lower the cost of natural gas for all users. Although the EIA analysis does not go into detail, REPP believes that
a renewable led decline in natural gas usage will lead to a reduction in the use of high cost imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). A program
to accelerate the penetration of renewable energy will be lower in cost, provide obvious environmental benefits, and increase security.
9
Link – RPS
A national RPS reduces demand and price of natural gas
Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant
Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for
New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, 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,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf)
A National RPS Reduces Natural Gas Prices

A national RPS can save consumers money by reducing demand for natural gas. Several studies have documented that an increase in
renewable energy production would decrease costs for electricity generation by offsetting the combustion of natural gas.77 Because some
renewable resources generate the most electricity during periods of peak demand, they can help offset electricity otherwise derived from natural gas-fired “peaking” or reserve generation
units. Photovoltaics, for example, have great value as a reliable source of power during extreme peak loads. Substantial
evidence from many peer-reviewed studies
demonstrates an excellent correlation between available solar resources and periods of peak demand. In California, for example, an installed PV
array with a capacity of 5,000 MW reduces the peak load for that day by about 3,000 MW, cutting in half the number of natural-gas “peakers” needed to ensure reserve capacity.78
The value of renewable energy to offset natural gas combustion varies with the projected supply (and thus the price) of natural gas. When demand for natural gas increases (or supply
decreases), its price increases and so does the value of the renewable resources used to displace it. Researchers at Resources for the Future calculated that, given the historic volatility of the
natural gas market, a 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand can reduce the price of natural gas by up to 2.5 percent in the long term.79 This inverse relationship between renewable
generation and natural gas prices was confirmed by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) who reviewed the projected affect of 20 different RPS scenarios on
future natural gas prices:
Each 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand could lead to long-term average wellhead price reductions of 0.8 percent to 2 percent, with some of the models predicting more aggressive
reductions. Reductions in the wellhead price will not only have the effect of reducing wholesale and retail electricity rates but will also reduce residential, commercial, and industrial gas
bills.80
In a 2007 study, the Union of Concerned Scientists assessed the cumulative affect of a 20 percent national RPS on average annual
electricity prices and found that an RPS would save consumers more than $49 billion largely by depressing the price of natural gas
used for electricity production and home heating:
Average consumer natural gas prices would be lower than business as usual in nearly every year of the forecast under the 20 percent RPS, with an average annual reduction of 1.5 percent. In
addition, average consumer electricity prices would be lower than business as usual in every year of the forecast, with average annual reduction of 1.8 percent. As a result, the 20 percent RPS
would save consumers $49.1 billion on their electricity and natural gas bills by 2020.81
UCS is not alone in their findings. LBNL researchers reviewed 13 studies and 20 specific analyses all confirming that the higher the level of renewable energy
penetration, the more gas is saved and the more gas prices are reduced.
Nine of fifteen studies evaluating national RPS proposals of 10 to 20 percent found that consumers would save from $10 to $40 billion from decreased natural gas prices.82
Some studies have also begun to document how RPS policies depress the price of other fossil fuels, such as oil and coal. In Pennsylvania, for example, where more than 90 percent of electricity
comes from coal and nuclear resources, a study conducted by Black & Veatch concluded an aggressive RPS would result in a substantial reduction in fossil fuel consumption, lowering the price
of coal and oil and ultimately providing cost savings to ratepayers. The study noted that even a 1 percent reduction in fossil fuel prices would lead to a $140 million reduction in fossil fuel
expenditures for the state.83 // pg. 42-44
RPS trades off with natural gas use

UCS 05 (Union of Concerned Scientists, “Renewable Energy Can Help Ease Natural Gas Crunch”, August 26,
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/renewable-energy-can-help-ease-natural-gas-crunch.html)
Renewable energy can save gas and reduce energy bills

Reducing gas use by improving energy efficiency and developing renewable energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, and bioenergy) can be faster,
cheaper, cleaner and more secure than relying primarily on developing new gas supplies.
Past EIA analyses have found that consumers could save money on electricity and gas bills if electric companies met a standard of 10 percent renewable energy by 2020.2 With EIA’s new
2004 gas price forecast, a renewable standard of 20 percent by 2020 would save even more money ($26.6 billion), according to new analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) using
EIA’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). Commercial and industrial customers would be the biggest winners (Fig. 3).
Previous UCS analyses have found that a 20 percent renewable electricity standard would save consumers money if renewable energy costs continue to decline as projected by UCS and the
Department of Energy’s national laboratories.3 The new analysis finds that a 20 percent standard is cost-effective even using EIA’s more pessimistic projections for renewable energy
technology costs. The analysis assumes the renewable energy tax credits included in the conference report on the national energy bill (Energy Policy Act of 2003) apply to renewable energy
facilities entering service through 2006.
Under the 10 percent standard, renewable electricity could save as much as 0.5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) per year compared to business as usual in 2020, and 5.1 Tcf cumulatively from 2005-
2025 (Fig. 4). Achieving 20 percent renewable electricity by 2020 could increase the natural gas savings to 1.8 Tcf per year (20.6 Tcf
cumulatively), equal to six percent of total projected 2020 gas use, or more than one-third of the natural gas consumed by U.S. households
today.
10
Link – Solar power Satellites
SPS will be used to replace current fossil fuel and nuclear plants
Nansen, 95 - led the Boeing team of engineers in the Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program for the

Department of Energy and NASA, and President Solar Space Industries
(Ralph, Sun Power, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/sunpower/sunpower09.html)
The real potential, however, is the ability to add generating capacity as the demands for energy grow. After meeting new energy
requirements we could start replacing the existing fossil fuel plants and obsolete nuclear plants. A large percentage of the current
power plants in the country are wearing out, and maintenance costs are accelerating as they reach the end of their useful life. They
could be replaced with solar power satellites, thus eliminating the demand for fossil fuels as our major energy source and starting the
process to clean up our atmosphere. Once this is done, a more natural growth can occur. With the availability of ample low-cost
electricity, the move could be made to replace a large share of the transportation requirements with electric power vehicles as well.
SSP generates such reliability in the electricity sector that it will jumpstart the electric car industry and replace oil
and natural gas
Prado 2, - physicist, former U.S. DOD space engineer and consultant multinational engineering and construction companies
(Mark, “Environmental Effects of SPSs on Earth,” http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-ec.htm)
The SPS poses a clear alternative to coal and nuclear power plants. But what about oil and natural gas? Can the SPS reduce the
vulnerability of the world economy to oil cutoffs (e.g., due to a Middle East war, terrorism, or embargoes)? Would it be wise to divert
our budgets away from wasteful military hardware and invest it into space development (by direct government subsidization and/or
massive tax incentives)? Do we need a lead time well before oil supply starts to fall short of oil demand?
Yes.
The "Electric Economy" concepts -- electric heat, electric vehicles, synthetic liquid fuels made with the help of electrical energy --
would reduce the growing world economies' vulnerability to energy shortages. This means using clean electrical energy in place of
natural gas heating, and making synthetic liquid fuels from natural gas, coal, and hydrogen gas from water electrolysis.
Electric cars would be more popular if parking lots at work, shopping centers, etc., were equipped with simple plug-in recharge
meters. Electric cars are clean and quiet. Liquid fuel for long range vehicles is the main energy source which SPS electricity cannot
substitute for directly. However, it can substitute indirectly by providing energy in making synthetic fuels. Also, by using electrical
energy in place of oil and natural gas wherever possible, oil and natural gas are liberated for use in long range vehicles.
SPS will decrease our dependence on foreign natural gas

Nansen 2000 - President Solar Space Industries,
(Ralph, Statement to the United States Congress Subcommittee on Space Science “The Technical Feasibility of Space Solar Power” Before the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics, United States House of Representatives Committee on Science September 7, 2000, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2571)
Energy demand continues to grow as our population expands. The electronic age is totally reliant on electric power and is creating a
new need for electric power. Many areas of the nation are experiencing energy shortages and significantly increased costs. United
States electricity use is projected to increase by 32% in the next twenty years while worldwide electric energy use will grow by 75%
in the same period. Worldwide oil production is projected to peak in the 2010 to 2015 time period with a precipitous decrease after
that due to depletion of world reserves. Natural gas prices in the United States have doubled in the last year as the demand has grown
for gas fired electrical generation plants.
Global warming and the need for reduction of CO2 emissions calls for the replacement of fossil fuel power plants with renewable nonpolluting energy sources. Even
with increased use of today's knowledge of renewable energy sources carbon emissions are expected to rise 62% worldwide by 2020. If we have any hope for a reversal
of global warming we must dramatically reduce our use of fossil fuels.
Solar power satellite development would reduce and eventually eliminate United States dependence on foreign oil imports. They
would help reduce the international trade imbalance. Electric energy from solar power satellites can be delivered to any nation on the
earth. The United States could become a major energy exporter. The market for electric energy will be enormous. Most important of
all is the fact that whatever nation develops and controls the next major energy source will dominate the economy of the world.
11
Link – Solar Power
Solar power will reduce dependence on LNG imports
Resch 07 (Rhone, president of SEIA, “Statement of Rhone Resch President Solar Energy Industries Association
Committee on House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment”, Congressional Quarterly, June 19)
The US is over-dependent on foreign sources of energy. Demand for natural gas continues to rise, primarily for electricity generation.
Increasingly we are turning to countries like Algeria to provide us with liquefied natural gas (LNG) to meet our growing demand. According to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 41 new LNG terminals are proposed for construction in US harbors and off US beaches. Constructing these plants will exacerbate our addiction to foreign sources of
energy. Our desire for energy independence demands a different course.
Solar energy directly displaces natural gas used for heating homes and water. In a home, solar can directly replace natural gas used to
heat radiant systems and can displace up to 70% of the natural gas used to generate hot water. Many countries that do not have a domestic source of
fossil fuels, including Spain and Israel, mandate that all new homes must have solar water heating systems installed. The US can demonstrate similar energy
independence by using market incentives that spur solar investment and market growth. Solar energy also displaces natural gas used to
generate electricity. Almost all intermediate and peaking electricity plants use natural gas as the source of energy. These plants are often very inefficient and produce expensive
electricity. Solar energy, which generates electricity from 8 AM - 7 PM daily, can displace these inefficient, high cost power plants, and
become a reliable source of firm, dispatchable power. Given the high price of natural gas to key industrial sectors and consumers, the US can no longer afford to neglect
its abundant solar resources.
Solar power eliminates the need for natural gas

Scientific American 07 (“A Solar Grand Plan”, December, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan)
High prices for gasoline and home heating oil are here to stay. The U.S. is at war in the Middle East at least in part to protect its foreign oil interests. And as China,
India and other nations rapidly increase their demand for fossil fuels, future fighting over energy looms large. In the meantime, power plants that burn coal, oil and natural gas, as well as
vehicles everywhere, continue to pour millions of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually, threatening the planet.
Well-meaning scientists, engineers, economists and politicians have proposed various steps that could slightly reduce fossil-fuel use and emissions. These steps are not enough. The U.S. needs
a bold plan to free itself from fossil fuels. Our analysis convinces us that
a massive switch to solar power is the logical answer.
Solar energy’s potential is off the chart. The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be
endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion
British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.
To convert the country to solar power, huge tracts of land would have to be covered with photovoltaic panels and solar heating troughs. A direct-current (DC) transmission backbone would also
have to be erected to send that energy efficiently across the nation.
The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes transportation)
with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold to consumers at rates equivalent to today’s rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh).
If wind, biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could provide 100 percent of the nation’s electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100.
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.
Solar will replace natural gas – reliable source of electricity

Resch 07 (Rhone, president of SEIA, “Statement of Rhone Resch President Solar Energy Industries Association
Committee on House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment”, Congressional Quarterly, June 19)
Finally, solar stabilizes volatile energy prices, a critical energy security issue affecting the US today. In the last five years, consumers have seen electricity prices escalate
between 20 and 78 percent. At the same time, we have seen the price of natural gas triple and the price of gasoline routinely exceed $3.00 per gallon. Each year the cost of
energy is taking a larger percentage of a family's income than at any other time in US history. This energy inflation vulnerability especially impacts the poor and elderly on fixed incomes.
Solar can help address this vulnerability because it requires no fuel to operate. Although a solar system is more expensive up front,
there are no additional costs for operating a system once installed.
Furthermore, solar panels are guaranteed for 20-25 years, allowing consumers to "lock in" their electricity prices for decades. Recognizing the
upward trend in energy costs, incentivizing the use of a technology that requires no fuel inputs is an important element of any energy security plan.
12
Link – Wind
Federal expansion of wind would be used to buffer natural gas imports

Real de Azua in 1--Communications Coordinator and International Policy Analyst, AmericanWind Energy Association (Christine,
Tulane Environmental Law Journal, “The Future of Wind Energy”, Summer 2001, Lexis Nexis)
From time to time, energy crises draw the nation's attention. The power crisis in California in late 2000 and early 2001 is the most recent example. The 2000-2001 crisis has focused public attention on, among other issues, the
The United States wind energy industry argues that investments in wind energy in
role of wind energy and other renewables as a source of clean, affordable power. 1
areas with a significant wind resource can help prevent future shortages of electricity in California and elsewhere without additional
long-term cost, pollution, or delay. 2
Wind energy has matured and surpasses traditional sources of power on many technological counts. 3 Wind is now the fastest growing
commercial scale energy technology in the world. 4 In 1999, wind energy surpassed nuclear energy worldwide in new generating
capacity installed. 5 However, wind energy generates only a minute fraction of the world's, and less than 1% of U.S., electricity. 6
This Essay examines the policies that have shaped the development of wind power in the United States. It argues that for wind energy
to play a more significant role in the nation's energy portfolio, policies overwhelmingly aimed at fostering the development of
conventional technologies, now outweighed by compelling public interests, should be overhauled to favor the development of cleaner
and more reliable technologies such as wind energy.
In addition, it has been shown that the public favors such a realignment of energy policy priorities. 7 For example, in its [*487] Thanksgiving 2000 Sunday edition, the New York Times ran a front page article entitled Curse
of the Wind Turns to Farmer's Blessing. 8 A brilliant color photograph showed a young farmer half-kneeling amid corn stubble in a snow-covered field with high-tech wind turbines behind him wringing electricity from the
bitter winter winds. 9 The farmer, Conrad Schardin, paid off family debts thanks to the revenue he earned for hosting the new, high-tech turbines, while continuing his traditional farming operations. 10
The article illustrates the promise of wind energy in America today: wind energy is revitalizing the economy of rural communities
from Lake Benton, Minnesota to Garrett, Pennsylvania and McCamey, Texas, by blowing cash into farmers' pockets; it can serve as a
buffer for consumers and utilities against volatile natural gas and oil prices; and it responds to a preference of the U.S. public for clean
energy over conventional sources.
Expanding wind would offset natural gas imports

AWEA 7 (American Wind Energy Association, “A proposal for a strategic initiative”, http://www.awea.org/policy/ccwp.html, 7/6/07)
Growing Economic Activity Based on Clean Energy
Increasing our domestic use of wind energy and supplying a growing share of multi-billion-dollar international wind technology markets also offers important
economic benefits for the country. And since these benefits are based on clean energy, rather than fossil fuels, they do not carry concealed long-term economic costs such as
environmental cleanup expenses, health care bills from air pollution and mercury deposition, and the like, which exert a hidden drag on economic growth.
This point bears repeating: a strategy that promotes renewables and wind is synergistic, encouraging economic growth while reducing damage to the environment, unlike most economic
stimulation strategies that policymakers consider.
Positive economic impacts of the Strategic Wind Energy Initiative include:
* Jobs associated with exports--Projected growth in the international wind energy market offers significant export opportunities for U.S. wind turbine and component manufacturers. If U.S.
manufacturers captured just one-fourth of the global wind equipment market under the "high growth" scenario through 2010, some 157,000 jobs would be supported.[21] The clean energy
equipment manufacturing industry is likely to be one of the next century's largest sources of new manufacturing jobs. The World Energy Council, for example, has estimated that new wind
capacity worldwide will total 180,000 MW to 474,000 MW by the year 2020, which equates to $150 billion to $400 billion worth of business. It is vital that the U.S. make a strenuous effort to
compete in this rapidly growing field.
* Jobs associated with use of domestic energy resources--Net
imports of natural gas have nearly tripled in the last decade, from 5% in 1987 to 13% today.[22] Gas
imports are expected to account for over 20% of increased U.S. gas consumption through 2010,[23] absent climate change policies that
would further boost gas use.[24] The substitution of domestic renewable energy resources and technologies for imported fuels creates significant net increases in jobs for
Americans, both direct and indirect.[25] For example, a study by the State of Wisconsin found that the net impact of increased use of renewables would be three times more jobs than that from
conventional generation.[26]
13
Link - Wind
Wind can meet all US energy and electricity needs
Brown 03 President of Earth Policy Institute
(Lester R., “Wind Power Set to Become World's Leading Energy Source”, June 25, Common Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0625-09.htm)
In 1991, a national wind resource inventory taken by the U.S. Department of Energy startled the world when it reported that the three
most wind-rich states - North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas - had enough harnessable wind energy to satisfy national electricity
needs. Now a new study by a team of engineers at Stanford reports that the wind energy potential is actually substantially greater
than that estimated in 1991.
Advances in wind turbine design since 1991 allow turbines to operate at lower wind speeds, to harness more of the wind's energy,
and to harvest it at greater heights -- dramatically expanding the harnessable wind resource. Add to this the recent bullish assessments of offshore
wind potential, and the enormity of the wind resource becomes apparent. Wind power can meet not only all U.S. electricity needs, but all U.S. energy
needs.
In a joint assessment of global wind resources called Wind Force 12, the European Wind Energy Association and Greenpeace concluded that the world's wind-generating potential --
assuming that only 10 percent of the earth's land area would be available for development -- is double the projected world electricity demand in 2020. A far larger share of the land area
could be used for wind generation in sparsely populated, wind-rich regions, such as the Great Plains of North America, northwest China, eastern Siberia, and the Patagonian region of
Argentina. If the huge offshore potential is added to this, it seems likely that wind power could satisfy not only world electricity needs but perhaps even total energy needs.
Over the last decade wind has been the world's fastest-growing energy source. Rising from 4,800 megawatts of generating capacity in 1995 to 31,100 megawatts in 2002, it increased a
staggering sixfold. Worldwide, wind turbines now supply enough electricity to satisfy the residential needs of 40 million Europeans.
Wind is popular because it is abundant, cheap, inexhaustible, widely distributed, climate-benign, and clean -- attributes that no
other energy source can match. The cost of wind-generated electricity has dropped from 38¢ a kilowatt-hour in the early 1980s to
roughly 4¢ a kilowatt-hour today on prime wind sites. Some recently signed U.S. and U.K. long-term supply contracts are providing electricity at 3¢ a kilowatt-hour. Wind
Force 12 projected that the average cost per kilowatt hour of wind-generated electricity will drop to 2.6¢ by 2010 and to 2.1¢ by 2020. U.S. energy consultant Harry Braun
says that if wind turbines are mass-produced on assembly lines like automobiles, the cost of wind-generated electricity could drop to 1-2¢ per
kilowatt hour.
Although wind-generated electricity is already cheap, its cost continues to fall. In contrast with oil, there is no OPEC to set prices for wind. And in contrast to natural gas prices, which are
highly volatile and can double in a matter of months, wind prices are declining.
Another great appeal of wind is its wide distribution. In
the United States, for example, some 28 states now have utility-scale wind farms feeding
electricity into the local grid. While a small handful of countries controls the world's oil, nearly all countries can tap wind energy.
Denmark leads the world in the share of its electricity from wind -- 20 percent. In terms of sheer generating capacity, Germany leads with 12,000 megawatts. By the end of 2003, it will
have already surpassed its 2010 goal of 12,500 megawatts of generating capacity. For Germany, this rapid growth in wind power is central to reaching its goal of reducing carbon
emissions 40 percent by 2020.
Rapid worldwide growth is projected to continue as more countries turn to wind. In addition to the early leaders -- Denmark, Germany, Spain, and the United States -- many other
countries have ambitious plans, including the United Kingdom, France, Brazil, and China.
In densely populated Europe, the off-shore potential for developing wind is also being exploited. Denmark is now building its second off-shore wind farm, this one with 160 megawatts of
generating capacity. Germany has some 12,000 megawatts of off-shore generating capacity under consideration.
Wind power is now a viable, robust, fast-growing industry. Cheap electricity from wind makes it economical to electrolyze water and produce hydrogen.
Hydrogen is the fuel of choice for the highly efficient fuel cells that will be used widely in the future to power motor vehicles and to supply electricity, heating, and cooling for buildings.
Hydrogen also offers a way of storing wind energy and of transporting it efficiently by pipeline or in liquefied form by ship.
With the wind industry's engineering know-how and manufacturing experience, it would be relatively easy to scale up the size of
the industry, even doubling it annually for several years, if the need arose. If, for example, crop-shrinking heat waves raise food prices and generate public pressure
to quickly reduce carbon emissions by replacing coal and oil with wind and hydrogen, it will be possible to do so. If the need arises to shift quickly to hydrogen-fueled automobiles, this
can be done by converting gasoline-burning internal combustion engines to hydrogen with inexpensive conversion kits.
For energy investors, growth in the future lies with wind and the hydrogen produced with cheap wind-generated electricity. Solar cell sales are growing at over 30 percent a year and are
likely to supply much of the electricity for the 1.7 billion people who are still without electricity, most of them living in developing country villages. But solar cells are still too costly to
supply the vast amounts of energy required to power a modern economy.
World coal burning peaked in 1996 and has fallen 2 percent since then. It is a fading industry, not an exciting investment prospect. Nor is oil particularly promising, since world production
is not likely to expand far beyond current levels. Production of natural gas, the cleanest and least climate-disruptive of the fossil fuels, is likely to continue expanding for a few more
decades, fortuitously developing an infrastructure that can be adapted for hydrogen. Nuclear power generation is expected to peak soon, when the large number of aging plants that will be
closing down will exceed the small number of plants that are under construction.
The energy future belongs to wind. The world energy economy became progressively more global during the twentieth century as
the world turned to oil. It promises to reverse direction and become more local during the twenty-first century as the world turns to
wind, wind-generated hydrogen, and solar cells. Wind and wind-generated hydrogen will shape not only the energy sector of the
global economy but the global economy itself.
14
IL – natural gas key to relations
LNG imports are key to forge long term relationships with foreign countries – U.S. demand is key to the global LNG
market
Yergin & Stoppard, 3 – * chairman of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates a leading energy consultancy AND **director of
global LNG at Cambridge Energy Research Associates
(Daniel Yergin and Michael Stoppard, Foreign Affairs, “The Next Prize,” November/December, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
These geopolitical issues should serve as a reminder that the gas trade will also have political implications, although not necessarily
any that would spark confrontations. Gas is not just another commodity. Because it is traded internationally, it is also an opportunity
for states to establish lasting relationships, as nations in Asia and Europe have done over the past three decades. Energy-short Japan
has long seen the need to forge strong political bonds with its gas suppliers. The Sakhalin LNG project, a $10 billion investment to
supply Russian gas to Japan, for example, is the single largest private foreign investment in Russia -- a monumental undertaking that
has depended critically on government-to-government commitment to bolster private-sector investment.
The natural gas business is on the brink of profound change. It is set to become global and to adopt a more flexible market model. Gas
may indeed become the fuel that helps keep the world's lights on. But this development is not predetermined; the United States needs
to embrace the LNG market to complete the transformation. That engagement is also necessary to meet U.S. energy and economic
needs. Company strategies and government policies need to move forward together to make this happen. A variety of risks will come
from increased interdependence, but, in a growing, diversified global market, they can be managed. And they are dwarfed by the much
greater risk that the United States and Europe could face a persistent shortfall in natural gas. There is a growing urgency to make
investments in LNG in the near term in order to avoid more serious disruptions in gas markets and economies later in the decade.
15
IL – natural gas key to US/Russian relations
U.S.-Russian investment cooperation over natural gas and energy issues is critical to boosting overall relations
Johnson 5 - research director at the Center for Defense Information (David, "RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER COMMENTS ON
ATTEMPTS TO RESTORE `ENEMY IMAGE" Jan 29 05
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9040-3.cfm)
MOSCOW, January 29 (RIA Novosti) -Russia has been lately witnessing a lot of outside criticism which distorts the actual state of affairs in the country and aims to set Russia at odds with the
USA, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the Russian-American Business Cooperation Council.
The highlights of the Minister's speech at the Council can be seen at the Russian Foreign Ministry's web site.
"We have been lately hearing voices of those who urge the US business community to refrain from investing in Russia, citing unfavorable investment climate and an alleged `clamp down on
democracy` in our country", Lavrov said.
According to him, he has repeatedly pointed out that Russia is open for criticism in case the latter "stems from bona fide intentions and an honest interest in developing fair partnership".
"Unfortunately, such is not always the case. Every
now and then we face criticism that does not only distort the actual state of affairs but also
pursues an ill-concealed aim to damage the Russian-US relations and restore, in one way or another, the `enemy image`. Apparently,
this approach is totally inadmissible," the Russian Foreign Ministry said
He pointed to a new trend in the Russian-US cooperation - a notable growth of Russian investment in the US economy and illustrated his
words with a number of recent transactions including acquisition by Russia's Severstal of US fifth steel producer RJ Industries, and Lukoil's purchase of Conoco Philips' chain of gas stations in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
As a result, Lukoil now owns one of the biggest chains of gas stations in North America.
"The overall volume of Russian investment in the USA is currently about $1 billion and is commensurate with the level of American
investment in Russia. In a nutshell, our investment cooperation has been steadily becoming a two-way street," Sergei Lavrov pointed out.
In his opinion, "the Russian-US cooperation in the energy sector holds the most potential, and not only in terms of bilateral relations."
According to him, the Russian-US cooperation in this vital area can substantially strengthen the world's energy security and stabilize supply of
energy resources on a global scale, including an increased share of Russian energy resources in the North American market (from 2 to 10 percent).
"Among other things, the Russian side is interested in adjusting the terms of competition on the world oil market, primarily those set by the Arab countries," the Russian Foreign Minister said.
The potential projects in the energy sector include construction of a pipeline linking Western Siberia with the Barents Sea, expansion of the Russian
facilities for liquefying natural gas with the aim of boosting natural gas supplies to North America, and further R&D efforts in exploring new sources
of energy, such as hydrogen..
LNG production and exports will boost Russia’s cooperation with the U.S.
Moscow Times, 5 (Valeria Korchagina, “Russia Rising as Energy Superpower on U.S. Demand,” 10-26-2005,
Finally, by involving Western partners in LNG production -- as in the case of Shtokman -- or taking part in the distribution of gas
abroad, as is assumed in Germany once a pipeline is built to that country under the bottom of the Baltic Sea, Russia is forging close
cooperation not only with foreign governments but also the consumers themselves, thereby taking its role as a global energy provider
much further.
"A more extensive web is being created in which Russia has a much safer role than just energy supplier ... and LNG is going to be a
part of it," Weafer said.
16
IL – US key global market
U.S. market is key – it has the greatest potential for growth
Nersesian 06 – Associate Professor of International and Public Affairs
(Roy L., “Energy for the 21st Century: A Comprehensive Guide to Conventional And Alternative Sources” December 2006, Pg 266-7)
The LNG market with the greatest potential of growth is the United States. The U.S. government recognizes the need to
build LNG terminals to avert a potential shortage of natural gas. Various projections call for the United States to be
importing from12-20 percent of its natural gas needs as LNG by 2025. Figure 7.6 shows that there has been an overall decline
in U.S. natural gas reserves since 1980, although there has been a marked increase in reserves since 2000. If the decline resumes in the
face of growing annual demand, then this will be the prelude to large-scale imports of LNG.
U.S. market is key – a large share of new exports will go there

Cohen 07 (Dave “LNG To The Rescue?” November 27, 2006. The oil drum. http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/1
2/131115/83)
1. The LNG Market — This Moment in History

In the grand scheme of things, the idea is that the globalized LNG market of the future will make natural gas a fungible commodity
worldwide. Newbuild LNG requires huge capital expenditures for liquefaction trains, tankers and regasification terminals. Heretofore,
transporting natural gas has been mostly constrained by the existence of pipelines, excepting the robust LNG trade in Eastern Asia.
LNG is now at an inflection point, as shown in Figure 2
As you can see, the global LNG trade is projected to expand about 150% by 2015 with a large share of new exports going to the
United States.
17
IL – US key to Russian Market
Gazprom is moving to expand cooperation with the U.S. over LNG to gain a greater share of this market
WPS, 8 (“Russian oil and Gas Report; GAZPROM AIMS TO MOVE INTO THE NORTH AMERICAN MARKET” 6/11/08, Factiva)
Gazprom CEO, Alexei Miller, said at the 12th St. Petersburg Economic Forum that Gazprom is interested in participating in the
construction of a pipeline from Alaska to Chicago. He said that the relevant proposals have already been sent to potential partners:
ConocoPhillips and BP. Moreover, Gazprom has approached TransCanada with proposals to participate in building a similar pipeline
from Alaska to Canada. Analysts say that Gazprom, with its wealth of experience in gas pipelines, could well become a participant in
either of these major projects.
The gas pipeline from Alaska to the southern states of the USA is estimated to cost $30 billion. Its capacity would be 4 billion cubic
feet per day (over 40 billion cubic meters per year). The project would entail building a gas processing plant at the North Slope field
(northern Alaska), along with building a gas pipeline across Canada (Yukon, British Columbia, and Alberta) to the United States.
Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller said at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum on June 7 that Gazprom's sphere of interests is not confined
to Europe. "Thus, for example, we are interested in participating in projects such as building a gas pipeline from Alaska. We have
already made the relevant proposals to our partners - ConocoPhillips and BP," said Miller. He emphasized that natural gas production
in the United States has been declining steadily in recent years (by over 30 billion cubic meters between 2001 and 2006), while Russia
has increased production by 70 billion cubic meters in the same period.
Gazprom Deputy CEO Alexander Medvedev said that Gazprom plans to meet with TransCanada to discuss the possibility of
participating in building a gas pipeline from Alaska to Canada. According to Medvedev, Gazprom representatives will soon meet with
TransCanada executives. Medvedev said: "given Gazprom's role in delivering LNG to the United States, it is worth discussing broader
cooperation, not only in delivering LNG or marketing gas in Canada, but also participating in all value-adding stages, including
production and transport." Gazprom is offering to participate in either of these options. Medvedev expressed the hope that all three of
the abovementioned corporations will be interested in working with Gazprom on such projects.
Experts say that Gazprom has a strong chance of "conquering Alaska." The project participants have already said that they will be
seeking additional shareholders, including pipeline companies. And Gazprom, with its experience and knowledge in the field of
pipeline-building, is a good candidate.
Russia’s largest natural gas companies see the United States as a crucial trading market.
NYT 2k4 (“U.S. Seeks Pacts With RussiaTo Raise Natural Gas Exports,” New York Times, 6/11/04
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DF1530F932A25755C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=)
In an effort to increase natural gas supplies to the United States, American officials are pursuing long-term export agreements with
Russia.
At the same time, the natural gas monopoly Gazprom, the main player in Russia, is grappling with complaints from minority shareholders that its business and profits are not transparent
enough.
United States Deputy Energy Secretary Kyle E. McSlarrow met this week with executives from Gazprom, the oil producer Yukos and Transneft, the oil pipeline monopoly, 10 days after Energy
Secretary Spencer Abraham met with Kremlin officials and Russian companies. Their hope is to increase Russia's energy exports to the United States and accelerate Gazprom's projects to
liquefy gas in the Arctic.
The United States is so serious about pursuing natural gas deals with Russia that the United States Export-Import Bank may help
finance a $15 billion project to develop Russia's giant Shtokman field.
''The subject of investment has been discussed, including in the context of proposals which U.S. ExImbank may put forward,'' Russia's deputy industry and energy minister, Ivan Materov, said.
Mr. Materov also said that Russia was interested in large American energy companies participating in the project.
His American counterpart, Mr. McSlarrow, said that liquefied natural gas, or L.N.G., projects have emerged as a way to stave off an anticipated shortfall in North American natural gas supply.
''Under everybody's scenario, L.N.G. imports will have to increase,'' Mr. McSlarrow said at a news conference this week. ''I think Russia realizes that
it ought to be a major player when it comes to L.N.G.''
The Shtokman deposit, on the shelf of the Barents Sea north of the Arctic Circle, has estimated reserves of 3.2 trillion cubic meters of gas and 31 million tons of gas condensate. The license to
develop it belongs to Gazprom and a subsidiary of government-owned oil company, Rosneft.
Gazprom wants to sign a deal to develop Shtokman and build a liquefied gas plant, and potential partners mentioned include Norsk
Hydro, ConocoPhillips, ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil and Shell.
''All the U.S. companies would like to do business with Gazprom,'' said an American official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
But industry analysts said they are skeptical about L.N.G. projects between Gazprom and American companies given the delays on other energy projects in Russia.
18
IL – A2 Europe key market
With gas production dropping in the U.S. Russia sees the US market as a key focal point of natural gas exports in the future.
Millerj, 8 – Chairman of Gazprom
(Alexy, “Gazprom invites you to tap Russia's natural gas,” 6/27/08, Commodity Online http://www.commodityonline.com/news/globalview/Gazprom-invites-you-to-tap-Russias-
natural-gas-9977-3.html)
Global challenges require global efforts for their resolution. For this reason, the sphere of our interests in not limited to the European
continent. It is well known that gas production has been steadily dropping in the United States in recent years (by more than 30 billion
cubic meter between 2001 and 2006), while Russia over the same period has been able to boost production by 70 billion cubic meters.
Gazprom has unique experience, know-how, and modern technologies, and is the world’s most advanced company in the field of gas
transmission via high-pressure gas pipelines. For this reason, for example, we are also interested in taking part in such major projects
as the construction of a gas pipeline from Alaska. We have already made a related proposal to our partners –ConocoPhillips and BP.
Gazprom hopes to serve the North American market from 2014 with liquefied natural gas from its proposed Shtokman project off
Russia’s north coast.
“We are currently assessing several options of accessing the North American market,” he said, adding that Gazprom had received
“many interesting proposals” from Canadian companies. He also confirmed that Gazprom was interested in the proposed Alaska gas
pipeline.
In the coming years Gazprom will be not just a major company in the world, but the most influential in the energy business,” adding
that its target was to reach a market capitalisation of $1,000bn.
Russia sees the U.S. as a key market – more lucrative than Europe
Fee 03 – former executive with Chevron and Mobil, is managing director and chairman of F C Fee International, Inc, an energy risk
management consultancy based in London
(“Russian And Iranian Gas And Future US Energy Security” IRAN/RUSSIA, VOL. XLVI No 37, 15-September-2003, http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a46n37d01.htm)
Russian Gas Exports To The US

The US, faced with declining domestic gas production and rising gas demand for gas-fired power plants, will soon need to accelerate
its importation of LNG. The US government, having recognized the need for action to protect and ensure US energy security, has
already signaled its interest in possible Russian gas exports to both the US east and west coasts (Gulf of Mexico coast not being
feasible for Russian exports). The Russian government, likewise, has begun to recognize the US as a potentially lucrative new export
gas market. In 2003, the Russian government decided to enter for the first time the LNG export market, and to refocus its export gas
strategy towards the US as a high priority. Moscow now sees the US gas market as highly lucrative as opposed to the European market
which is mature and highly competitive, the latter especially true as a result of recent EU gas market liberalization. Nevertheless,
Europe will continue to be of great importance for Moscow as proof of Russia maintaining its reputation as a reliable long-term
supplier of pipeline gas.
19
IL – changes in one country  global changes
The natural gas market is becoming increasingly integrated – demand changes in one country will cause ripples throughout
the global market
Jaffe et. al, 6 – *Fellow for Energy Studies at Rice University
(Amy M. Jaffe, Mark H. Hayes and David G. Victor, Natural Gas and Geopolitics: From 1970 to 2040, “Conclusions,” pg. 469-470)
This book has considered the implications of a major shift from a world of regionally isolated natural gas markets to a new more interdependent, increasingly global, marketplace for gas. The
driving forces for this shift to a global gas market include the increasing preference for gas as a fuel, technological advances that are reducing the cost of producing and delivering gas to
markets, and liberalization of gas markets. The rising importance of gas as a primary energy source brings with it concerns about gas pricing and security of gas supply. Globalization of the
natural gas trade will have significant ramifications for consumers and gas producers alike. Just as policy-makers in large consuming countries have focused on the macroeconomic effects of
variable oil prices, similar concerns are already evident about natural gas prices as the fuel begins to play a larger role in world economies. Producing
countries will also have to
worry about income effects of global natural gas pricing trends.
Results from the study's economic modeling suggest that the shift to a global market will render each major consuming or producing area
vulnerable to events in any region. The timing of major gas export projects coming online, as well as discontinuities in supply or
demand, will ripple throughout a global market. For example, as shown in the scenario runs of the model presented in chapter 12, in a world of fully integrated natural
gas markets, gas users in Japan will have a vested interest in stability of South American gas reaching the US West coast; those in the United States will have concern about
natural gas policy in Africa and Russia, and the European Union will be compelled to monitor the political situation in gas-producing regions as remote as the Russian Far
East and Venezuela.
Major consuming countries will have to learn to adjust to the interdependencies of a global gas market. In the past, policy-makers in large gas-
importing countries have focused on key supply relationships such as the large pipelines from Algeria and the Soviet Union that fed Europe or the multitude of pipelines that sent gas from
Bolivia to Brazil and from Argentina to Chile (see chapters 3, 5, and 6, respectively). Sustained attention from governments will continue to be critical to creating an attractive environment for
these massive capital investments. However, a narrow focus on one-off trading relationships is unlikely to prove an effective means to providing supply security in a future where a much more
fungible global market will set prices in all major markets and determine the movement of gas supplies.
The natural gas market will become increasingly liquid – changes in demand in one country will impact prices for other
countries
Sweetnam, 4 - vice president and principal with LukensEnergy Group Inc., an independent management consulting firm in Houston
(Glen E., Natural Gas Electricity, “LNG Imports: Where and When Will They Arrive,” May, vol. 20, no. 10, from Wiley InterScience)
Somewhat paradoxically, increased LNG imports are also likely to increase gas price volatility. This increase will occur for two
reasons. First, the LNG supply chain is much longer and, therefore, more vulnerable to disruptions, than North American gas
production. Foreign strikes, industrial accidents, shipping or docking problems due to weather, and port closures due to accidents or
terrorist threats will all disrupt LNG supplies and cause corresponding changes in gas prices. Second, world gas markets will become
increasingly liquid over the next decade, and changes in gas supply or demand conditions anywhere in the world will increasingly
affect gas prices in the United States. In much the same way that the world oil market is integrated, gas markets will become
increasingly global and more volatile.
20
Impact - Russia Econ
Natural gas exports are a critical component of the Russian economy.

EIA 2k7 ( Russian Economy: Background” no specific date, Energy Information Administration,”
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Russia/Background.html)
In 2007, Russia’s real gross domestic product (GDP) grew by approximately 8.1 percent, surpassing average growth rates in all other
G8 countries, and marking the country’s seventh consecutive year of economic expansion. Russia’s economic growth over the past
seven years has been driven primarily by energy exports, given the increase in Russian oil production and relatively high world oil
prices during the period. Internally, Russia gets over half of its domestic energy needs from natural gas, up from around 49 percent in
1992. Since then, the share of energy use from coal and nuclear has stayed constant, while energy use from oil has decreased from 27
percent to around 19 percent.
Russia’s economy is heavily dependent on oil and natural gas exports. In order to manage windfall oil receipts, the government
established a stabilization fund in 2004. By the end of 2007, the fund was expected to be worth $158 billion, or about 12 percent of the
country’s nominal GDP. According to calculations by Alfa Bank, the fuel sector accounts for about 20.5 percent of GDP, down from
around 22 percent in 2000. According to IMF and World Bank estimates, the oil and gas sector generated more than 60 percent of
Russia’s export revenues (64% in 2007), and accounted for 30 percent of all foreign direct investment (FDI) in the country.
Russian economic decline causes civil war—escalates and goes nuclear.

David, 99 – Professor of Politics Science at Johns Hopkins (Steven, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb, lexis)
If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a
society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-
two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it
is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where
subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the
current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of
patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist
Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -- personal friendships between government leaders and military
commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new
emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals
may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and
local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new
laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military
would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will
continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government
finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and
less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of
which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation.
Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and
Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will
be severe. A major power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke
opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in
Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of
much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations
of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia
could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim
consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites
scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's
already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and
states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that
would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war.
21
Impact – Relations key to Heg
Strong U.S.-Russian relations are key to effective American leadership

Nixon Center 2k3 (“Advancing American Interests and the U.S.-Russian Relationship: INTERIM REPORT,” SEPTEMBER 2K3
HTTP://WWW.NIXONCENTER.ORG/PUBLICATIONS/MONOGRAPHS/FR.HTM)
At the same time, U.S. leaders increasingly recognized the emerging, inter-related threats of terrorism and proliferation. Though
policy makers and experts had devoted some attention to these issues earlier, the tragic events of September 11 rapidly crystallized
American thinking about these threats and transformed the struggle to contain them into the principal aim of American foreign policy.
Notwithstanding its diminished status and curtailed ambition, Russia has considerable influence in its neighborhood and a significant
voice elsewhere as well. Moscow can contribute importantly to U.S. interests if it chooses to do so. Accordingly Russia can markedly
decrease, or increase, the costs of exercising American leadership both directly (by assisting the United States, or not) and indirectly
(by abetting those determined to resist, or not).
For this Commission’s purposes it is American interests, not the U.S.-Russian relationship per se, that are paramount. The relationship
should serve U.S. interests—not vice versa. This does not mean that Russian interests are unimportant. Russian cooperation on
specific issues will reflect Russian judgment of how these actions affect its interests. Fortunately, Russia’s national interests converge
with our own interests much more than they diverge. The real interests Russia and America share—including Russia’s successful
integration into the West as a market-oriented democracy—greatly outweigh the interests that divide us. But since short term interests
and narrower political advantage can cloud perceptions, U.S. policy must have a more ambitious objective than simply demonstrating
to Moscow how its cooperation with the U.S. advances Russian interests. Wise policy will also seek to create significant equities in
Russian society and among leading political forces in cooperative action, which provides the context for managing unavoidable
differences on other issues.
22
Impact – Relations stop a China War
US Russian relations are key to prevent war with China- it forms a cooperative deterrence.
Levgold 2k3 – professor of political science at Columbia University
(Robert, “All the Way: Crafting a U.S.-Russian Alliance” Central Asian Nexus, Winter 03
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/siwps/publication_files/legvold/All%20the%20Way%20-%20Legvold.pdf)
So what might animate a U.S.-Russian alliance? The core focus can and should be stability and mutual security in and around the
Eurasian land mass. This has three aspects. First, as Alexander Vershbow, the current U.S. ambassador in Moscow, puts it: "Russia is
the most important key to the stability of Eurasia" itself, without which neither Europe nor Asia, two regions in which the United
States has vital interests, can "be stable and prosperous." As long as Russia respects the sovereignty of the former Soviet republics, the
United States has every reason to cooperate with Russia in stabilizing and aiding those states. In this regard, as well as others, alliance
does not mean condominium; U.S.-Russian collaboration must not imply a readiness to decide matters over the heads of Russia's
neighbors. On the contrary, an alliance's purpose would be to strengthen their sovereignty and vitality. One example of the subtle way
in which the revolution in Russian foreign policy makes this kind of alliance possible concerns Belarus. Putin's new agenda has led to
a sharp cooling in Russia's relations with Alexander Lukashenko's regime. As a consequence, a leadership that flouts the values on
which modern European security is based is increasingly isolated, the prospect of a Russian-Belarusian union has faded and Ukraine's
fears of encirclement have eased. Although not perfectly parallel, U.S. and Russian interests in Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova now
converge sufficiently to make promoting stability and successful reform there a matter of common U.S. and Russian ground.
Second, to borrow the formulation of Alexei Bogaturov, in the 21st century no longer is peninsular Europe or Northeast Asia the
critical "strategic rear" of the United States, but the vast turbulent region stretching from eastern Turkey to western China and along
Russia's south. As the United States girds to cope with the threats emanating from this area, no country brings more value as a
potential ally than Russia. As things stand, the United States has backed into Central Asia with military power as part of the war
against terrorism, and in the process it has offered quasi-security commitments to its new partners, almost certainly without careful
consideration of their wider implication. Central Asia forms the unstable core of Inner Asia; it is an area--the only one in the CDI
Russia Weekly #236 http://www.cdi.org/russia/236-13-pr.cfm 2 of 3 2/8/07 10:28 PM world--surrounded by four nuclear powers, two
of whom recently teetered on the brink of war. It contains multiple points of friction, from Kashmir to the Fergana Valley to northwest
Kazakhstan to China's Xinjiang province, each of them capable of bleeding into a larger conflict. It is populated by regimes whose
stability is universally suspect. And it contains wealth, particularly in energy resources, that will make it increasingly important to both
Asian and European consumers.
Not only, therefore, are the United States and Russia directly but separately implicated in the stability of the region, but a third
country, China, is as well. This raises the third aspect of a U.S.-Russian alliance to enhance Eurasian stability. China will be a decisive
actor in Inner Asia, not the least because it forms an integral part of the region. Unfortunately, China enters through its underdeveloped
northwest territories, including Xinjiang, precisely where it feels most vulnerable. In part because of this sense of vulnerability, and in
part because of the general state of Sino-American relations, China has not welcomed the arrival of American military power in
Central Asia. On the contrary, while excusing a temporary deployment in the context of a war that it supports, China's leadership has
opposed an extended U.S. presence there as an element of a hostile encirclement stratagem.
Russia and the United States have good reason to act jointly, not only to enhance their common stake in regional stability, but to draw
China into a constructive dialogue over the role all three will play in Central Asia. Russia, with the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization, is already engaged in such an effort. Talking to the Russians about U.S. military activities in Central Asia (and Georgia)
builds mutual confidence by promoting transparency, but it is not so far-fetched to imagine a far more ambitious trilateral dialogue
among Russia, China, and the United States. Much as the United States and its European allies share assessments of threats at the
edges of Europe, plan for coordinated action, and struggle to create the necessary machinery, so can and should Russia and the United
States do the same in Eurasia, with Chinese participation when appropriate.
Russia and the United States allied against the new century's primary strategic threats, particularly those emanating from within and
around the Eurasian land mass, would have much the same significance in the emerging international order as key U.S. alliances have
had in the last. Even more so will this be the case if the alliance is underpinned by Russia's successful integration into the international
economy and safe passage to democracy. BACK transparency, but it is not so far-fetched to imagine a far more ambitious trilateral
dialogue among Russia, China, and the United States. Much as the United States and its European allies share assessments of threats at
the edges of Europe, plan for coordinated action, and struggle to create the necessary machinery, so can and should Russia and the
United States do the same in Eurasia, with Chinese participation when appropriate.
23
Russia shipments safe
Transportation routes will boost safety of LNG shipments to the U.S.

Moscow Times, 5
(Valeria Korchagina, “Russia Rising as Energy Superpower on U.S. Demand,” 10-26-2005, http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9279-27.cfm)
To boost gas production and sales, Gazprom is also considering building an LNG terminal and plant in Ust Luga, near St. Petersburg,
by 2009, to liquefy gas shipped through the network of already existing pipelines.
The shipments from Russia are also likely to be chosen by an increasing number of buyers concerned with safety. Unlike the LNG
currently shipped from the Persian Gulf, the highly explosive product from Russia will be transported through the Arctic, rather than
through routes that edge the highly populated shores of Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
24
A2 – Accidents
LNG explosion won’t create a huge plume or massive deaths
Melhem et al 06 – PHD Professor of Structural Engineering
(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)
Myth No. 3
An LNG tanker accident could cause the release of all five tanks LNG content. This will create a plume that would extend 30 miles.
Upon delayed ignition thousands of people within the plume would be instantly killed.
Fact
LNG is not flammable until it is vaporized, mixed in the right proportions with air, and then ignited. The measured minimum ignition energy of LNG vapors
is 0.29 mJ (milli-Joules). Flammable LNG vapors are easily ignited by machinery, cigarettes, and static electricity. Static electricity discharged when one walks on a carpet or brushes his/her hair is 10 mJ, or 35 times the
A large LNG vapor cloud cannot travel far into developed areas without igniting and burning back to the
amount required to ignite LNG vapors.
source. A scenario describing LNG vapor clouds impacting entire cities is “pure fiction”.
The vapor cloud and subsequent pool fire will have a potentially significant impact on the immediate release area and downwind to
the first ignition source. This significantly limits the extent of impact.
It is not realistic to imagine that all five tanks on an LNG tanker can be instantaneously released. To instantaneously remove the double hulled side of an LNG ship would require an enormous amount of explosive. The
explosive used to breach the hull would cause more damage to the surroundings than the subsequent LNG spill and pool fire. To mount such an attack on an LNG ship would require the equivalent of a full-scale military
operation, not a clandestine terrorist operation.
Since the early 1980s, the scientific community clearly demonstrated that a Gaussian dispersion model (the same model used to estimate the 30 mile dispersion distance) is not appropriate for LNG vapor dispersion.
Dispersion estimates using a proper heavy gas model are reported in the recent Sandia study. The potential to realize major injuries and significant damage to property resulting from an intentional breach scenario extends less
than ½ mile from the spill origin.
An LNG explosion would do minimal damage – this specifically indicts their impact evidence
Lloyd's Register, 4 – Leading participants in the safety and verification of LNG facilities around the world
(“Statement on LNG risks from Lloyd's Register North America, Inc.” 9-23-2004,
http://www.lr.org/News+and+Events/News+Archive/2004/Statement+on+LNG+risks+from+Lloyds+Register+North+America+Inc.htm)
LNG. The real risks

In the US, regulators and other interested parties have identified as key concerns the possibility of a terrorist attack involving an LNG terminal or an LNG carrier, and the consequences for the
surrounding population and infrastructure. Global terrorism is certainly a major threat and all reasonable measures should and must be taken to mitigate the risks and consequences of any
actions, however, commentators
and observers are incorrect if they believe that a terrorist attack on an LNG carrier would have the impact
of a nuclear explosion. There are several technical reasons which bear this out:
1. LNG is transported globally in insulated tanks on specialised ships. These tanks provide four physical barriers and two layers of
insulation between the LNG and the outside environment. Further, the separation between the inner and outer hulls of an LNG carrier is
typically over two meters. These two factors combined mean that LNG cargo carried at sea has a very high in-built level of protection
from external blast sources.
2. In the event of an attack, even if a one-meter hole were to be formed in the inner hull, the resultant holes in the primary containment barrier would be significantly smaller due to the
increased separation distance from the blast source combined with the pressure absorption properties of the secondary containment barrier and insulation materials.
3. It is unrealistic to imagine that the entire cargo of any ship can be instantaneously released. To mount an attack on an LNG carrier
that would result in the instantaneous release of all of its cargo would require the equivalent of a full scale military operation, not a
clandestine terrorist operation like those carried out against the USS Cole and the Limburg.
4. The idea that LNG carriers are potential nuclear devices is erroneous. There is a lot of energy in LNG and natural gas, as in any
hydrocarbon. However, the 'nuclear explosion' statement describes the total energy an LNG carrier contains, not the rate at which the energy would be released in an incident. For
example, a lump of coal contains lots of energy, but when set on fire, its energy doesn't all come out instantly like a bomb. Instead, the coal burns over a period of time releasing its energy as it
goes. Similarly, LNG
carriers contain large quantities of energy, but the energy can only be released slowly in the event of a spill or a fire.
5. AnLNG spill in open air will not result in a bomb-like explosion. This has been consistently demonstrated in experiments. Not everything that is
ignited explodes like a bomb. For example, when a match is lit, it burns but does not explode. Similarly, the natural gas vapour that could result from an LNG carrier spill also falls
under the category of substances that will burn but not explode like a bomb.
Reason and caution
Paul Huber, Director of LRNA, says: "There are risks associated with the transport and storage of LNG, as there are with any hydrocarbon energy source, and these are precisely the reasons
that the LNG industry operates with extensive international and national regulations which govern the safety of LNG transport and storage. The
effectiveness of these
regulations is apparent in the LNG shipping sector, which has an unblemished safety record spanning 40 years - a track record which
is unrivalled by any other maritime sector and most land-based industries. It should also be remembered that LNG itself is one of the cleanest-
burning and most environmentally friendly energy sources currently available on a global scale.
"While the shadow of terrorism hangs over us, we have to do as much as we can to protect ourselves and our borders, but it is misleading to state, as some have, that an
attack on an LNG carrier would be similar to a nuclear event. It is difficult for us to know the rationale behind the assertion contained
in the speech to the Houston Forum, but it is clear that it is not supported by fact.
25
A2 – terrorism
Their terrorism impact is ridiculous – tankers aren’t an effective target
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.
Tankers aren’t terrorist targets and the impact will be limited

Myth No. 2
LNG tankers and land based facilities are vulnerable to terrorism; An LNG potential disaster (explosion of an LNG tanker) is greater
today because of the threat of terrorism. The gigantic quantity of energy stored in huge cryogenic tanks is what makes LNG a
desirable terrorist target. Tankers may be physically attacked in a variety of ways to destroy their cargo or used as weapons against
coastal targets.
Fact
As discussed earlier, LNG ships are not attractive “mass casualties” terrorist targets. Any explosive charge used on an LNG ship will
cause immediate ignition of the LNG vapors. The subsequent LNG pool fire will have a potentially significant impact on the
immediate release area only. This will significantly limit the extent of impact. There are also new Coast Guard security regulations (33
CFR Part 105) for LNG tanker movements and terminals. In addition, IMO and the USCG have established stringent security
requirements for vessels in international and United States waters.
No impact—the worst case scenario kills 8,000

Kaplan, 6 – Associate Editor of the Council on Foreign Relations
(Eben, “Liquefied Natural Gas: A Potential Terrorist Target?” February 27, 2006, http://www.cfr.org/publication/9810/)
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."
26
A2 – terrorism
No impact—the worst case scenario kills 8,000
Kaplan, 6 – Associate Editor of the Council on Foreign Relations
(Eben, “Liquefied Natural Gas: A Potential Terrorist Target?” February 27, 2006, http://www.cfr.org/publication/9810/)
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."
There are too many precautions for there to be a terrorist attack

O’Malley- Chief, Ports and Facilities Activities United States Coast Guard- 8
(Mark, “SAFETY AND SECURITY OF LIQUID NATURAL GAS,” May 7, 2007, Lexis)
In addition to undergoing a much more rigorous and frequent examination of key operating and safety systems, LNG vessels are
subject to additional measures of security when compared to crude oil tankers, as an example. Many of the special safety and security precautions the
Coast Guard has long established for LNG vessels derived from our analysis of "conventional" navigation safety risks such as groundings,
collisions, propulsion or steering system failures. These precautions pre-dated the September 11, 2001 tragedy, and include such measures as special vessel traffic control measures that are
implemented when an LNG vessel is transiting the port or its approaches, safety zones around the vessel to prevent other vessels from approaching nearby, escorts by patrol craft and, as local
conditions warrant, coordination with other Federal, state and local transportation, law enforcement and/or emergency management agencies to reduce the risks to, or minimize the interference
from other port area infrastructure or activities. These activities are conducted under the authority of existing port safety and security statutes, such as the Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191 et.
seq.) and the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, as amended. Since September 11, 2001, additional
security measures have been implemented, including the
requirement that all vessels calling in the U.S. must provide the Coast Guard with a 96-hour advance notice of arrival (increased from 24
hours advance notice pre- 9/11). This notice includes information on the vessel's last ports of call, crew identities and cargo information. In addition, the Coast Guard now regularly boards
LNG vessels at- sea, where Coast Guard personnel conduct special "security sweeps" of the vessel and ensure it is under the control of proper authorities during its port transit. In order to
protect the vessel from external attack, LNG vessels are escorted through key port areas. These armed escorts afford protection to the nearby population centers by reducing the probability of a
successful attack against an LNG vessel. These actions are in addition to the safety and security oriented boardings previously described. Of course, one of the most important post-9/11
maritime security improvements has been the passage of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA). Under the authority of MTSA, the Coast Guard developed a
comprehensive new body of security measures applicable to vessels, marine facilities and maritime personnel. Our domestic maritime security regime is closely aligned with the International
Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code. The ISPS Code, a mandatory requirement of the SOLAS Convention, was adopted at the IMO in December 2002 and came into effect on July 1st
2004. Under the ISPS Code, vessels in international service, including LNG vessels, must have an International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC). To be issued an ISSC by its flag state, the
vessel must develop and implement a threat-scalable security plan that, among other things, establishes access control measures, security measures for cargo handling and delivery of ships
stores, surveillance and monitoring, security communications, security incident procedures, and training and drill requirements. The plan must also identify a Ship Security Officer who is
responsible for ensuring compliance with the ship's security plan. The Coast Guard rigorously enforces this international requirement by evaluating security compliance as part of our ongoing
port state control program.Any LNG vessel entering Long Island Sound would be subject to strict safety and security standards. There would be a
moving security zone around the LNG carriers and a fixed safety zone around the proposed Floating, Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU). Coast Guard
enforcement activities would be based on the most current threat assessment as well as standing Coast Guard policy and procedures which account for known and unknown threats. State
and local law enforcement agencies could assist the Coast Guard with the enforcement of these safety zones. Another element of the
extensive layered security system established by MTSA is Coast Guard approved facility security plans. Implementing the facility security plan for
the FSRU would be Broadwater Energy's responsibility. An element of the facility security plan for the FSRU would include the employment of private security guards to conduct on-water
security patrols in the vicinity of the FSRU. Private security guards would not have the authority to enforce the fixed or moving safety zones.
27
N/U – imports to US decreasing
LNG shipments to the U.S. declining – past predictions of an increase have been proven wrong
IHT, 8 (Clifford, International Herald Tribune, “U.S. expands LNG capacity, just in time for shortages,” 5-30-2008, p.16, Proquest)
The cost of a gallon of gasoline gets all the headlines, but the natural gas that will heat many homes in the United States next winter is going up in price as fast or faster
as the nation falls behind in a global race to secure the gas.
Only a month after Cheniere Energy inaugurated its $1.4 billion liquefied natural gas terminal here - a languid, alligator-infested marshland in coastal Louisiana - an
empty supertanker sat in its berth with no place to go while workers painted empty storage tanks.
The nearly idle terminal is a monument to a stalled switch to liquefied natural gas, or LNG, a switch that was supposed to import so much
gas from around the world that homes would be heated and factories humming at bargain prices.
But LNG shipments to the United States are slowing to a trickle, and Cheniere and other companies have dropped plans to build more
terminals.
A longstanding assumption of U.S. energy policy has been that gas would be plentiful abroad, and therefore readily available for importation, as production falls off in
North America, where many fields are tapped out. But some experts are starting to question that idea, saying gas could be subject to the same explosion in overseas
demand that has made oil so expensive.
As it is, the supertankers that were supposed to deliver cargoes of LNG from Africa and the Middle East to the United States are taking them to
places like Spain and Japan instead, pushing up natural gas prices and depleting U.S. stockpiles.
"A few years ago people looked at LNG as a solution to North America's gas needs," said Nikos Tsafos, an analyst with PCF Energy, a consulting firm. "But today we
see that there is less LNG around than people expected and there is more competition for that LNG from markets that are willing to
pay more than the United States."
Not long ago, Cheniere was a darling of Wall Street. It was widely praised for having the vision to plan four LNG terminals around the Gulf of Mexico to connect the
United States with supplies of gas from places like Nigeria and Egypt, gas once considered so worthless it was burned off.
Now the company's stock price has sunk to just over $5 from $40 last autumn.
"The question that people ask is, if LNG doesn't come to the United States for another year or two or three, what is going to happen to Cheniere," Charif Souki, chief
executive of the company, acknowledged.
While gas prices in the United States have spiked to over $11.80 per thousand cubic feet, or $417 per thousand cubic meters, an increase of 57 percent from the
beginning of the year, the price gas producers can fetch is higher in many other countries in the world. All they need are terminals in producing countries that can chill
natural gas to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 162 Celsius) for shipping across oceans and terminals in consuming countries that can re-gasify cargoes.
Just about the only place where demand for LNG seems not to be growing is the United States, an abrupt shift from expectations as little
as one year ago.
LNG exports to the U.S. are falling – it is being sent to other countries with greater demand
IHT, 8 (Clifford, International Herald Tribune, “U.S. expands LNG capacity, just in time for shortages,” 5-30-2008, p.16, Proquest)
That was the thinking that spurred the LNG expansion in the United States in the first place. At the beginning of the decade, government officials and energy experts
predicted a decline in U.S. gas production as conventional fields onshore and in the Gulf of Mexico declined. Companies like Cheniere, Sempra Energy and Exxon
Mobil began snapping up coastal land and requesting regulatory approval for scores of terminals. Several other terminals were taken out of mothballs and expanded.
But recently, U.S. gas production has been stronger than expected and events abroad have drawn LNG from the United States to countries
that needed it more.
Last July, an earthquake in Japan forced the closing of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, which in turn has forced Japanese utilities to import huge amounts
of LNG.
World LNG supplies grew even more scarce because of a persistent drought in Spain that has crimped hydroelectric capacity, forcing
the Spanish to increase LNG imports.
Prices in Asia and Europe have soared, as producers have sold more supply on the spot market where prices are higher than those in traditional long-term contracts.
World demand for natural gas has grown about 2.6 percent a year over the past decade, but in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America
and Africa it has averaged 7 percent over the same period, according to a recent UBS report. Growth in the developing world is expected to be supported
in the years ahead by a construction boom in refineries, power plants and petrochemical plants.
Supplies of LNG are going to grow in the next few years, but experts say there will not be enough to satisfy the growing demand. Liquefaction plants that prepare the
gas for shipping in producing nations like Nigeria and Russia are being delayed and even shelved because of political turbulence, cost overruns and increasing domestic
demand. Production in one major terminal in Indonesia is sliding because of a declining field, and production in another in Norway is facing mechanical difficulties.
With LNG providing only about 3 percent of total U.S. natural gas consumption in recent years, the fall in imports has made few
headlines. But some experts say those responsible for importing gas are making a mistake by not buying more LNG at current prices.
They say low LNG imports have helped push U.S. natural gas prices higher, just not high enough to match the prices of Europe and Asia, whose ability to produce and
store gas is far lower than that of the United States.
28
N/U – relations low
Relations with Russia low now – missile defense
CSM 7/9 (“U.S., Russia revert to cold-war rhetoric over missile-defense plan,” Christian Science Monitor, 7/9/08
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0709/p99s01-duts.html)
A war of words erupted this week between the United States and Russia over a controversial US plan to deploy a missile-defense
shield in the Czech Republic and Poland. The plan has already strained US-Russia relations and encountered resistance from some in
Europe.
The verbal spat between the US and Russia came after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday inked an initial agreement
on missile-defense deployment with the Czech government in Prague, as reported by the Associated Press.
According to Reuters, Russia's Foreign Ministry responded to the news in a statement: "If the real deployment of an American
strategic missile defense shield begins close to our borders, then we will be forced to react not with diplomatic methods, but with
military-technical methods."
In reaction to that statement, the US criticized Russia for its "bellicose rhetoric," which it said was meant to intimidate the European
partners of the US into backing out of the defense plan, according to the BBC. The report goes on to clarify Russia's statement.
The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington cites Russia's ambassador to the UN as suggesting that the phrase "military-technical
means" does not mean military action, but more likely a change in Russia's strategic posture, perhaps by redeploying its own missiles.
The US has ambitious plans for a missile-defense system that would include advanced radar facilities in the Czech Republic and 10
interceptor missile sites in Poland. The US insists the shield is designed to protect against attacks from "rogue states" in the Middle
East, such as Iran. A graphic made available by Agence France-Presse maps the US missile shield as well as proposed deployments.
But Russia has strongly protested, saying the deployment of the US shield would threaten its security by blunting the capabilities of its
own missile force.
29
No Link – RPS
RPS won’t produce sustainable price decreases for natural gas
Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton
(Robert J., Energy Law Journal, “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L. J. 79, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
Even if the price of gas falls it is unlikely to stay low. If the gas market is competitive and near equilibrium just before the RPS takes
effect, the highest-cost producer will just break even. An RPS shifts the demand curve for gas leftward, and hence its price falls.
Producers that formerly broke even or made small profits will take losses and wish to exit from the market. When they can disinvest
they will leave the industry and their former production will be subtracted from market supply. As the adjustment takes place, price
will rise and gas consumers will enjoy smaller benefits.
RPS won’t reduce natural gas demand

NAM 7 - National association of Manufactureres
("PROTECT ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS FROM RATE INCREASES: OPPOSE THE BINGAMAN RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD AMENDMENT", unknown
date in 07, http://www.nam.org/s_nam/doc1.asp?CID=202504&DID=226878)
The RPS Amendment is Not the Answer to the Natural Gas Crisis
* Some RPS proponents claim that a federal renewables mandate will significantly reduce the demand for natural gas used in
electricity generation, but that is not likely to be the case. Natural gas has many advantages as a fuel for electricity generation, chief
among them its quick-start capability, which makes gas-fired generation the clear fuel of choice for “peaking” units needed to
constantly rebalance supply to serve customers instantaneously. This is especially important for providing “spinning reserves,” or
constantly running backup power, needed for intermittent resources like wind and solar. So it is disingenuous to justify an RPS as the
answer to the natural gas crisis.
RPS will expand use of national gas by lowering its price

Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J.
49, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
A long-term reduction in natural gas costs as a result of a mandatory national RPS could lead to increased consumer use of natural gas.
In fact, even without a national RPS, future residential heating applications are expected to continue to drive residential demand for
natural gas. n196 "Between 1991 and 1999, 66 percent of new homes, and 57 percent of multifamily buildings constructed used
natural gas heating. In 2003, 70 percent of new single family homes constructed used natural gas." n197 If natural gas prices do, in
fact, continue to decline as a result of a national RPS, this trend can only be expected to continue.
30
No IL – US not key market for Russia
No internal link – there are other buyers of Russian LNG
Moscow Times, 5 (Valeria Korchagina, “Russia Rising as Energy Superpower on U.S. Demand,” 10-26-2005,
But potential buyers of Russia's LNG are certainly not limited to those based in North America.
Given Russia's geographic proximity to energy-hungry Japan, liquefied gas projects like Sakhalin-2 are likely to present strong
competition to the Gulf producers.
Japan is expected to be the main buyer of LNG from the Shell-led, $20 billion project on the southern tip of the Sakhalin Island, which
is expected to deliver its first gas shipments in 2008. Tokyo will purchase at least 3.4 million tons of LNG per year. Sakhalin Energy,
the developer of the project, said it would also ship 37 million tons of LNG from Sakhalin to Mexico over a 20-year period.
Russian just signed a big natural gas deal with Canada – that gas won’t be exported to the U.S.
Toronto Star 08 ("Russia's Gazprom agrees to supply LNG project in Quebec" Business, pg. B03, 05/16/2008.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=6FP4095293044&site=ehost-live)
Gazprom OAO, the world's largest natural-gas producer, has agreed to supply a proposed liquefied natural gas import terminal in Canada
that would provide the home-heating and power-generation fuel to users in Ontario and Quebec. Gazprom's Shtokman field in Russia will
supply the Canadian terminal starting in 2014, the Moscow-based company said yesterday in a statement with partners Gaz Metro LP,
Enbridge Inc. and Gaz de France SA. The Rabaska terminal would be 15 kilometres east of Quebec City. The project's cost, including a terminal capable of processing 500
million cubic feet of gas, was estimated in 2006 at $840 million. Rabaska was scheduled to start construction in 2006 and begin operating in 2008. Development has been delayed by
Rabaska would connect to
environmental group opposition. A start date for the terminal was contingent on securing supply, Enbridge spokesperson Jennifer Varey said yesterday.
pipelines to serve customers in eastern Ontario and Quebec. "We don't expect much gas, or any gas, to go to the U.S.," said Rabaska CEO
Glenn Kelly. "It will stay in Quebec and Ontario.
31
No IL – Europe key market
No internal link- Europe is the key market for natural gas exports.
Smith 2k7 (Keith C., fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies) Challenging Russia's energy dominance, 4/2/07,
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20070402a2.html
On the contrary, European countries continue to forge bilateral deals with Russia, with little consideration for common EU interests. The West
European EU members have shown scant concern over Russian pressure tactics against the new members in Central and Eastern Europe, calling into question the extent of EU solidarity
regarding energy supplies.
Since the Kremlin interrupted energy supplies to the Baltic states in 1990 in a futile attempt to stifle their independence movements, it has continued to use pipeline politics against countries
such as Poland, Latvia and Lithuania -- all new EU members. For them, and for new democracies like Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, Russian energy dominance and its political consequences
remain a serious threat.
Russia has profited from Europe's disarray by moving to cement greater long-term European dependence on its energy, particularly
natural gas by continuing its divide-and-rule tactics toward European governments. Since January 2006, Moscow has negotiated separate deals with energy
companies from Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, Serbia, Slovakia and Denmark that could undercut Europe's efforts to build additional pipelines aimed at bypassing Russia's near monopoly
of supplies from Central Asia.
It initially appeared that Germany under Chancellor Angela Merkel would be more sensitive to the energy security of Central and Eastern Europe. However, Merkel approved the expensive
Northern Europe Gas Pipeline (NEGP) beneath the Baltic Sea, negotiated between her predecessor Gerhard Schroeder and President Vladimir Putin, and strongly opposed by fellow EU
member Poland, which the pipeline will bypass. The NEGP will cost at least eight times as much as the alternative Yamal II pipeline, which would have gone overland through Poland.
Despite the European Commission's good intentions, the
EU's larger members continue to resist submitting to a common EU energy policy. In mid-
November, EU foreign ministers failed to agree on a common approach to Russian energy -- just as reports resurfaced that Russia may
seek to establish a natural-gas cartel similar to OPEC.
The EU's political will to counter its increasing dependence on Russia in the immediate future is thus open to serious doubt. Indeed, for the next five to 10 years, Russia will be able to fulfill its
gas contracts in Europe only by monopolizing exports of gas to Europe from Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. But the
EU so far has chosen to ignore that
Gazprom's monopoly is a clear violation of the antitrust and competition policies of the revised Rome Treaty and WTO obligations.
Russia clearly believes that the current tight world energy market and high prices give it enough leverage over the West to maintain its current
approach. Russia consistently refuses to allow Western companies the same access to Russian facilities that Russian state energy
companies already enjoy in Europe and the United States. That is likely to remain true as long as the West fails to adopt an energy strategy that causes the Kremlin to
change course.
32
No IL – US not key market
No internal link – U.S. LNG imports are not key with current tight natural gas market
NGI’s Daily Gas Price Index, 8 (“U.S. Remains LNG Market’s Stepchild,” 6-20-2008, Factiva)
Imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the United States this year will fall "well short" of the 770 Bcf seen last year, likely hitting
only 420 Bcf, an amount "staggeringly below" previous projections, according to Houston-based consultancy Waterborne Energy
Inc."We knew U.S. LNG imports would fall short of 2007 volumes when we saw delays in new production and demand rising in
Europe and Asia," said Waterborne President Steve Johnson.
According to Johnson, drought conditions in Spain, a prolonged nuclear shutdown in Japan and increased demand for LNG among
power generators have changed market dynamics. "When demand increases and supplies remain flat, the U.S. is the first to come up
short," he said. "The U.S. serves as the 'sump' for excess supplies of LNG and is the only country whose imports are largely driven by
profit and not necessity. So, product we expected here is now being sold to the highest bidders in Asia and Europe."
Industry observers were hoping for another record year of U.S. LNG imports based on 50 Bcf/month of new production that was
expected to hit the market earlier this year.
"Delays at projects in Norway, Qatar, Nigeria, Australia, Russia and Yemen resulted in short supplies," said Johnson, who noted a
recovery for U.S. LNG imports next year is possible if planned new production of 72 Bcf/month comes on-line.
Whatever LNG does come to U.S. shores in the future will likely cost more. Analysts at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. in a report
Thursday said there is a potential for LNG to be priced at parity or even a premium to oil. Although prices may decline next year and
in 2010, tight market conditions in the years thereafter due to limited new supplies could raise LNG prices beyond those of oil.
"The more LNG that comes on-line prior to next summer, the bigger the impact on U.S. import volumes. We could see volumes in
excess of 2007 levels of 770 Bcf," said Johnson.
Recently, industry executives and observers have predicted a dearth of LNG cargoes available to the United States given the thirst for
the liquefied fuel in Asian markets (see Daily GPI, May 22; May 19).
According to Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities Inc., sendout from U.S. LNG regasification terminals is down markedly from a
year ago. In the first quarter sendout was about 0.8 Bcf/d compared to about 1.9 Bcf/d a year ago.
LNG exports to U.S. are decreasing – other countries are taking up the slack by importing more
Energy Trader, 8 (“LNG demand to bolster US gas prices: Goldman,” 6-20-2008, Factiva)
Voracious demand in South Korea and Spain will keep liquefied natural gas deliveries to the US low, which is bullish for domestic gas prices,
analysts at Goldman Sachs said late Wednesday.
Analysts Samantha Dart and Jeffery Currie predict that Henry Hub prices will average $12.80/MMBtu over the summer and peak at $13.80/MMBtu this winter before falling back to
$10/MMBtu next June as Asia and Europe pull provide strong competition for LNG supply.
"The higher-than-expected increase in LNG demand from Asia and Europe in the first quarter of 2008 was met by higher-than-
expected LNG supplies in the market, likely motivated by high spot LNG prices in the period and lower-than-expected North
American LNG imports," Dart said. "Both Mexico and the United States showed declines in LNG imports earlier this year relative to our
expectations."
Goldman Sach's bottom line is that increased international demand for gas will bolster US prices as LNG deliveries will no longer help meet US demand, which they still expect will increase
despite a slower economy.
Developing countries are shifting to a greater reliance on natural gas – at a rate much greater than the U.S.
Klare, 6 – professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College
(Michael T., The Nation, “The Geopolitics of Natural Gas,” 1-23-2006, www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Geopolitics_NaturalGas.html) //
Developing nations like China, India and South Korea, increasingly aware of the environmental consequences of their excessive reliance on oil and coal, are also
turning to natural gas. According to the Energy Department, gas consumption in China will grow by an estimated 7 percent per year between 2001
and 2025, five times the rate for the United States and the largest for any major industrial power; India and South Korea are also among
the fastest-growing gas consumers. These projections help explain the aggressive steps being taken by these countries to secure additional supplies of gas.
33
No Mpx – Russia won’t let them collapse
No impact – Russian government support proves – largest gas companies will never collapse.
NYT 2k4 (“U.S. Seeks Pacts With RussiaTo Raise Natural Gas Exports,” New York Times, 6/11/04
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E2DF1530F932A25755C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=)
Western executives say that the Kremlin is always on call whenever Gazprom needs a boost.
Last year, TNK-BP, a Russian joint venture involving BP and the Alfa Group, Access Industries and the Renova Group, agreed to sell Gazprom a vast Siberian gas field after Russian authorities
threatened to cancel the venture’s license to operate there. Gazprom offered $700 million to $900 million for TNK-BP’s stake in the field and a local gas distribution company. It is a complex
deal that has yet to close. Whatever its terms, analysts say, they would hardly compensate BP for the field, Kovykta, which is thought to hold immense gas supplies — and for the millions of
dollars that the venture had already invested there.
Gazprom’s spokesman, Sergei V. Kupriyanov, says that Gazprom is not responsible for TNK-BP’s regulatory troubles and that the terms reflect market conditions.
OTHER deals involving Gazprom have followed similar patterns. In transactions involving both Shell and BP, Mr. Putin met directly
with corporate executives. For a time, Kremlinologists thought that he might segue into the chairman’s job at Gazprom; executives say Mr.
Putin, a former spy, shows a keen interest in the oil and gas business.
34
Terrorism Turn
The coast guard is stretched thin now, more LNG imports increase the risk of terror attacks
Natural Gas Week, 8
(John A. Sullivan, “GAO Report: LNG Tankers Remain Vulnerable; CG Said Unprepared,” January 14, 2008, lexis)
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."
A terrorist attack will literally shut down the export of LNG – turning the DA
Energy Bulletin, 4
(Hector Igbikiowubo, “2020 Scenario: OPEC May Be Replaced,” 1-12-2004, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/145)
Its operations, which involve ExxonMobil, ConocoPhilips and France's Total among others, will ship products to Japan, Spain, Britain and the US. The company is currently looking to Europe
and the US for more deals. Rafgas is set to produce 36.6 million tons of LNG per year by the end of the decade. Qatar Petroleum is the main owner, with ExxonMobil taking just under one-
third of the venture. Its three projects will supply LNG to South Korea, Spain, Italy, India, Taiwan and the United States. But Qatar's ambitious plans and those of other gas producers to
globalize the industry, will require huge investment, around $200 billion in the next decade, according to most estimates. Much of this will involve the construction of many more regasification
terminals. Environmentalgroups have opposed plans for these because of the potential for explosions, either accidental or the result of
terrorist sabotage in the plants themselves or the tankers that transport the LNG.
"A serious incident in the United States and the whole thing would shut down," said Doug Rotenberg, British Petroleum's president for global LNG, adding that
"it would be devastating." There are only 40 regasification plants in the world, spread among 10 countries, with around 20 in Japan and four in the US. Spain, strategically located
relatively close to natural gas sources in the Gulf and North Africa, is one of the biggest LNG buyers , 21 billion cubic meters consumed in 2002 alone.
A terrorist attack that would have the force of a nuclear explosion

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
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."
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.
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.
35
Coast Guard overstretched
Terrorist threats to LNG imports are growing and the Coast Guard lacks the resources to prevent them
Lloyd’s List, 8 (“Coast Guard lacks resources to ensure security of LNG vessels,” January 11, 2008, lexis) –CMM
THE US Coast Guard lacks the resources to meet its own security standards for tasks such as escorting ships carrying liquefied natural
gas, the country's congressional auditors warn. And the report* by the Government Accountability Office concludes that the rapid expansion of LNG
imports could result in this state of affairs persisting. The report, which examines the challenges raised by the possibility of terrorist action against tankers and gas
carriers, says a successful attack would have substantial public safety, environmental, and economic consequences. There is no "specific credible"
threat to tankers or terminals in US waters, the GAO says. However, it adds that "the threat of seaborne terrorist attacks on maritime energy tankers and
infrastructure is likely to persist", with the greatest risks being at shipping chokepoints, such as the straits of Hormuz and Malacca, far
from US shores, but which could damage the country's economic interests. Despite international agreements calling for protective measures, "substantial
disparities" exist in overseas implementation. However, the report does not excuse the US's own performance. "Domestically, units of the Coast Guard, the lead federal agency for
maritime security, report insufficient resources to meet its own self imposed security standards, such as escorting ships carrying LNG." The
report highlights LNG because of the tremendous growth in imports: by 2015, crude oil imports are forecast to increase by nearly 4%, while those for
LNG will grow more than 400%. Increased workload demands relating to LNG "could cause the Coast Guard to continue to be
unable to meet the standards it has set for keeping US ports secure". The GAO recommends that the US Homeland Security Department directs the Coast Guard to
"develop a national resource allocation plan that will balance the need to meet new LNG security responsibilities with other existing security responsibilities". It also recommends that the
Coast Guard and the Federal Bureau of Investigation work together to "help ensure that a detailed operational plan has been developed that integrates the different spill and terrorism response
sections of the National Response Plan". The report identifies three main types of threats ndash; suicide attacks such as explosive-laden boats, "standoff" attacks with weapons launched from a
distance, and armed assaults. Of greatest concern, it says, is a suicide attack, such as the 2002 speedboat attack on the tanker Limburg off the coast of Yemen. The Limburg attack killed one
person, injured 17, and spilled 90,000 barrels of oil.
Monitoring LNG imports is draining the Coast Guard’s resources

Inside F.E.R.C., 8 (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Joel Kirkland, “GAO: Coast Guard struggles to meet security demands
as more resources shift to LNG,” March 10, 2008, lexis)
The US Coast Guard's growing responsibilities related to securing liquefied natural gas import terminals reportedly have run smack
into one stark reality: its resources for doing so are stretched more each year. Government Accountability Office analyst Stephen
Caldwell told a Senate Commerce subcommittee Thursday that the Coast Guard is weighed down with a seemingly endless number of
homeland security missions, and as a result the Coast Guard is not meeting its requirements for providing vessel escorts and
conducting security patrols off the US coast. "In several cases, the Coast Guard has been unable to keep up with these security demands,"
Caldwell told the panel in prepared testimony. Chief among the Coast Guard's troubles is balancing security demands such as interdicting
undocumented migrants and more traditional missions such as environmental protection, said the government analyst. And part of the problem,
he said, is that the Coast Guard has the resource-consuming task of providing security for vessels arriving at four onshore LNG terminals
and to future terminals. With LNG projected to be a bigger piece of the energy supply pie in the decades to come, according to the
Energy Information Administration, the Coast Guard will shift more resources in that direction. "The number of LNG tankers
bringing shipments to these facilities will increase considerably because of expansions that are planned or underway," Caldwell said, noting
that up to 12 more LNG terminals could be built in the next decade. "As a result of these changes," he said, "Coast Guard field units will likely be required to
significantly expand their security workloads to conduct new LNG security missions." In December, GAO recommended the Coast Guard
create a "national resource allocation plan" to address what will be required to meet the LNG security needs. The Coast Guard, which is under the
Department of Homeland Security, has been an outspoken critic of proposed LNG projects that fail to adequately ensure that bigger LNG tankers can safely navigate waters along busy areas of
the coast. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in Washington and New York, the Coast Guard turned its focus to securing the country's huge network of ports and waterways where
the vast majority of US imports travel through, Caldwell noted, adding that "the
Coast Guard continues to face challenges in balancing its resources among
each of its mission programs." The Coast Guard has requested more than $9 billion for FY-09. About 11% of that would help fund a
25-year, $24 billion program to upgrade Coast Guard vessels and aircraft.
36
LNG imports = more attacks
Increased LNG exports increase the volatility and frequency of terrorist attacks – lack of crew vetting and other
vulnerabilities.
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, http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15510&t=Terrorism+threatens+natural+gas+supply)
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.
Only a risk that sustaining natural gas imports increases terrorist attacks -- lack of security facilities
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, http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15510&t=Terrorism+threatens+natural+gas+supply)
Inadequate U.S. security measures for facilities

During a hearing in the United States House of Representatives on 21 March 2007, Jim Wells of the GAO raised doubt that the Coast Guard can marshal the resources needed to meet its
responsibilities. While
it took 40 years to build the fleet of LNG carriers to 200 tankers worldwide, it will take less than four more years for
that number to grow to 300. This rapid growth rate coupled with the anticipated growth rate of LNG imports into the U.S. presents a
real security challenge. The U.S. faces today potential lack of security measures and resources to protect these new assets.
Shortage of qualified mariners & U.S. officers
The rapid growth of LNG does not affect only the ability to safeguard each ship; it also affects the quality of mariners working
onboard these vessels. Due to the nature of LNG, highly skilled and trustworthy individuals are required to ensure its safe transport. Currently, LNG tankers have crews
consisting of mostly foreigners. Yea Byeon-Deok, professor and LNG initiative coordinator of the International Association of Maritime Universities said, during a conference in
Australia, “Many substandard vessels have begun to appear as demand for LNG increases, while there is a chronic shortage of
experienced crew.”
Because of sudden rapid growth in the industry, many experts question whether or not there will be enough qualified mariners to crew these vessels. Nearly 1,500 senior officers and 750 senior
engineers will be required to man the 100 new LNG ships. Approximately 80 percent of these ships will be fitted with steam turbines, requiring engineers with steam experience, which,
according to one report, is a “vanishing resource.” The
fact that many senior LNG officers are due to retire soon, and new, highly skilled mariners
will be required to replace them exacerbates the situation. It will be tough enough just to replace those who are retiring, increasing
existing shortages of crew members and officers to crisis proportions.
37
Current Efforts fail
Current efforts are insufficient at keeping LNG safe
Pine, 7 – former naval officer, is a veteran journalist who has worked as a Washington correspondent for the Baltimore Sun,
Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Los Angeles Times
(“Time for a Mid-Course Correction?” July 2007, EBSCO) –CMM
Five-plus years after 9/11, the government still has a long way to go in strengthening port security. The United States has made modest
progress in bolstering its overall homeland security defenses since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, but port security has always
taken a back seat, both in urgency and in spending levels. Now, more than five years later, it's clear that some rethinking of such efforts is in order. The task won't be easy,
a recent U.S. Naval Institute conference on port security showed. Although the Coast Guard and the Customs and Border Protection Agency have made
strides in setting up new systems to track global shipping and screen cargo containers, there are still plenty of gaps and unanswered questions, participants
said. And the government needs to streamline the layers of overlapping laws and regulations that have been hastily put in place in response to public demands for quick action. Those were the
major themes sounded by military, industry, and academic experts at USNI's Second Annual Homeland Port Security Conference, held in Baltimore on 22 May. While speakers and panelists
didn't offer any firm solutions, they highlighted unresolved debates on an array of key issues, from improving maritime domain awareness to inspecting container ships and safeguarding
vessels and ports against explosions of liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers. Gaps Remain They also expressed concern that policymakers haven't done enough contingency
planning on how to keep the U.S. and global economies running in the wake of a major disruption of commerce — such as the
explosion of a radiological bomb in a large U.S. harbor — that might well prompt authorities to shut down ports on both coasts,
crippling shipping all over the globe, and plunging the economy into a deep recession. They said detailed plans for restoring commerce after such disasters
were desperately needed. "Numerous steps have been taken to improve the security of the global movement [shipping] system since 9/11, but these
have largely been piecemeal," concluded a study by IBM Global Business Services distributed at the conference. "Many efforts have stalled due to an uncertain
governance structure, both among nations and between the public and private sectors. Key stakeholders have been hesitant to adopt new security
measures, uncertain of their potential impact on commerce, or on privacy and data protection." There's no doubt that the port security issue is
crucial. As panelists pointed out, by far the bulk of U.S. trade in goods — both imports and exports — is carried by ships. More than 16 million containers enter the United States each year
at America's 361 seaports. Their cargo is offloaded and put onto freight cars or trucks — where there's almost no security protection — and immediately transported to thousands of cities
across the nation. The opportunity for terrorists to exploit this system is enormous. Yet doing something about it has proved difficult. Unlike aviation security — where the Federal Aviation
Administration and Transportation Security Administration shoulder the bulk of the burden — the responsibility for shipping and port protection is spread among dozens of federal, state, and
local agencies and private industry. Physically inspecting all incoming containers before (or even after) they arrive at U.S. ports would require massive amounts of money and manpower and
could easily stifle commerce and impede economic activity. Common Themes While the conference provided no real consensus on many key issues, participants voiced some common themes:
First, the amount of money the government has spent on strengthening port security over the past five years has fallen short of what is needed
to tackle the job effectively. The dollars that have been allocated for port security have totaled far less than what has been spent on aviation security, and much of it has been
diverted to relatively low-risk ports. Second, the layers of laws and regulations the government has put in place in its effort to strengthen port
security over the past five years have led to a muddled system with no overarching leadership, and too little coordination among the myriad players in
the system, the participants said. Finally, both government experts and industry specialists conceded that the nation's maritime and port authorities have not yet
developed the kinds of contingency plans they would need to restore the flow of commerce in the wake of a major natural disaster or
terrorist action. Gary LaGrange, president of the Port of New Orleans, said local officials had made no plans for how to deal with a hurricane as strong as Katrina, which severely limited
their ability to respond to the disaster and is impeding recovery efforts even now. "When it hit, we were pretty much caught with our pants down," LaGrange said. Indeed, retired Coast Guard
Commandant Admiral James M. Loy, who was deputy director of the Department of Homeland Security during its first three years of existence, called for a stocktaking period in which the
United States would review the port and containership security measures it has put in place, refine and consolidate them, and fill in the gaps that still exist. He also urged authorities to develop
an overarching "intellectual construct" to guide homeland security policymakers through the next several years — much as the United States did on containing the Soviet military threat during
the early days of the Cold War. Focus on Issues Panelists also tackled narrower issues in the port security debate. One group delved into the efforts to enhance surveillance and intelligence-
gathering under the rubric of maritime domain awareness — the ability to keep track of developments that might threaten shipping or port security — and how to distribute the information to
the agencies that need it. (Consensus: more work needs to be done.) Another talked about how much container screening would be practical, given the tremendous flow of maritime traffic.
(Answer: we needn't try to screen all containers, but the United States needs more equipment — and more arrangements with foreign customs authorities — to gather information about
A third group discussed what has become a nightmare scenario
containers and scan more of them electronically, preferably before they leave their overseas ports.)
for those who worry about port security — the possibility of an explosion of an LNG tanker. While industry representatives sought to point out that
natural gas can't actually burn in its liquefied state, panelists disagreed about how large an exclusion zone should be set up around LNG vessels and terminals. Finally, the conference heard a
first-hand account from New Orleans' LaGrange on the chaos his port faced in the wake of Katrina — a situation he likened to what a U.S. city might experience after a major terrorist attack.
The panel's conclusion: federal, state and port authorities need to draw up detailed plans for how to restore the flow of commerce at major ports, or risk throwing the economy into a deep
recession if a disruption occurs. Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, who served as the first secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, praised efforts by the Customs and
Border Protection Agency to set up procedures under which U.S. customs agents stationed abroad oversee scanning and tracking of shipping containers before they leave foreign ports. Thomas
S. Winkowski, deputy assistant commissioner for field operations at the Customs agency, said his agents now check about 81 percent of containers heading for U.S. ports, and he expects to
boost that to 92 percent by the end of this year, at a minimal inconvenience to shippers. That doesn't mean 81 percent of the containers are physically inspected, Mr. Winkowski said. The figure
Government and
also includes instances in which authorities scan a container with electronic devices, or, in the case of well-known shipping firms, merely look over the manifest.
industry officials said the overall system already is being strained, and needs more money and manpower to do the job. And it needs a single
leadership that could make key decisions about how the various players should proceed and could manage the entire maritime security effort.
38
Accidents Turn
Natural gas accidents are common and could kill thousands

Greenparty, 4 (“LNG: The Next Battle Line,” Reprinted from Synthesis/Regeneration #35, Fall 2004,
www.greenparty.org/LNG.html)
As Greenspan alluded, safety is a primary concern with LNG terminals. Liquefied natural gas is both super-cooled to minus 260
degrees Fahrenheit and compressed to 1/600 of its gaseous volume. It is then placed in tankers as long as three football fields ( there
are presently 130 ships in the LNG fleet with 50 more on order ) and stored in holding tanks as tall as 15-story buildings. Mass
amounts of such flammable methane under pressure are a first class hazard for any community. The LNG industry touts the
"safeness" of LNG but defines an LNG "accident" in the narrowest of terms: the ignition of a massive quantify of stored LNG. In
Cleveland, Ohio, in 1944, a leak from the first US LNG facility and the resulting fires killed 128 people. No further LNG construction
took place in the US until the 1970s under the impact of OPEC.
LNG vapors ignite at 500 degrees Fahrenheit at a gas-to-air mixture in the range of 5-15%. In the case of such an event, a low
hanging vapor cloud could burn at a thermal temperature capable of producing second-degree burns within a two-mile radius. A study
by the Oxnard, CA City Council in 1977 found that an LNG accident in the Oxnard area could take 70,000 lives.
It must be kept in mind, however, that LNG is simply a liquid form of a range of hydrocarbon fossil gases, all of which trail long
histories of well-head accidents, pipeline breaks, leaks, spills, fires, explosions, property damage, injury, and death. All of these
hazards should be evaluated by a community before the placement of an LNG terminal. The risk to a community is not just the LNG
vapor fire, but many other hazards attendant on mass fossil gas storage and production. A facility leak of liquid petroleum gas ( LPG
or butane ) near Mexico City in 1984 took 500 lives. Pipeline accidents are a constant problem: in 1994, in Edison Township, NJ, a
pipe leak caused a tower of fire 500 feet high and destroyed 8 buildings; a leak at Carlsbad, NM, in 2000, killed 12 people. The list of
pipeline accidents can be greatly extended.
An accident on a LNG tanker could cause a 2000 feet flames and major injuries
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)
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.
39
LNG isn’t being made safe
The industry isn’t making the necessary changes to make LNG safe
Fay, 5 – professor emeritus at MIT
(“Is LNG Safe?” October 2005, http://alum.mit.edu/ne/whatmatters/200510/index.html) –CMM
Natural gas is becoming a global commodity. Unlike oil or coal, which can be shipped in transoceanic bulk cargo ships from remote
producer to consumer markets worldwide, natural gas has to be pipelined from well to home or factory. But wells close to consumers
are being depleted, and new, easily recovered gas lies in remote locations oceans away. New technology makes it both economical and
efficient to convert the gas to a very cold liquid (called liquefied natural gas, or LNG) and transport it in insulated supertankers to
special LNG terminals in market countries, where it is gasified and pumped into existing gas pipelines for sale to consumers. While
American consumers and government officials decry our dependence on unreliable overseas suppliers of crude oil, the natural gas
industry is girding for a vast expansion in U.S. imports of natural gas in the form of LNG from the same overseas sources. To land this
flood of LNG, new import terminals must be constructed, at least six or eight by 2010 in the view of U.S. officials, and even more by
2020. This prospect has attracted proposals for more than 60 new terminals to be located on the U.S. Gulf, Atlantic, and Pacific coasts,
as well as nearby Canadian, Mexican, and Bahamian shores. Only a fraction of these are needed, or will be built. The special
technology of LNG marine tankers and their accompanying import terminals has raised questions of the safety of transporting and
storing this liquid fuel in large bulk quantities. As a liquid, natural gas is extremely cold and boils furiously when accidentally spilled
on land or water. If ignited, it will burn quickly—10,000 tons spilled on water would be consumed in only a few minutes. Gigantic
fires would spread harmful thermal radiation out to distances of a mile, causing burns and possibly death to unprotected bystanders.
There have been no such major spills on water and none on land since the 1940s in the U.S. But recent boat bomb attacks on a U.S.
destroyer and French crude oil tanker in the Persian Gulf have alerted the U.S. Coast Guard to the potential for a terrorist attack on
LNG tankers entering U.S. harbors, such as Boston, where they pass close to densely populated downtown areas. The heavily armed
patrol boats surrounding current LNG tanker landings, instituted since 9/11, have attracted public attention and anxiety, especially in
communities where new terminals have been proposed. Proposals for terminals in or near densely populated urban areas have
uniformly met with the spirited resistance of nearby residents and some public officials. While the safety issue is paramount initially,
ultimately it is the incompatibility of the hard-core industrial nature of the facility with longer-term goals of community development
that defines the issue. This appears to be true even in towns of low population density—such as Harpswell, Maine—where broadly
shared community values of quality of life can overcome the commercial attractiveness of industrial development to hard-pressed
taxpayers and job seekers. There is a technological alternative to siting LNG import terminals at waterfront locations for which
higher-valued uses are desired or planned. LNG tankers can be equipped to transform their liquid cargo into high pressure gas as it is
discharged into an undersea gas transmission pipeline miles from shorelines, whether urban or rural, thereby mooting the safety issue
for the onshore public. A current offshore LNG terminal in the Gulf of Mexico uses an existing pipeline from an offshore gas well to
do just this. The residual environmental effects are much less than those for in-harbor sites where channel dredging, land and harbor
traffic management, military style security procedures, and other disruptive measures have to be instituted. The proponents of offshore
terminal systems claim that the cost of the system is only 10 percent greater than that of onshore terminals, and offshore terminals can
be constructed much more quickly. Few of the proposed U.S. terminals are of this type, however. There are more than 45 proposals
for LNG terminals in the U.S. now in various stages of consideration. Of these, less than a dozen are offshore terminals. In New
England and eastern Canada, there are 15 active proposals, of which three are offshore. Although the opposition to offshore terminals
is much less intense than for the onshore sites, the LNG industry prefers the traditional tank-on-harbor-front-shore, which is the
historic model of the oil industry, mostly because of decades of experience in importing crude oil by marine supertankers. Is LNG
safe? It can be, but not when the industry practice is business as usual.
40

Natural Gas Disad

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Natural Gas Disad

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Natural Gas DA Emory Debate

Georgia Novice Packet jh

Russia, United States Seek To Intensify Energy Cooperation

Russia’s natural gas export revenue will increase in 2008

Our evidence subsumes missile defesne- cooperation sustains relations.

Russian economic expansion continues

Investor confidence proves Russian economic growth will outlive slowdowns.

Renewable energy reduces demand and price of natural gas

Renewable energy can reduce gas and electricity prices

New renewable energy policies will displace Liquefied Natural gas

How would the RES affect national energy security?

An RPS would significantly drop dependence on liquefied natural gas

A National RPS Reduces Natural Gas Prices

RPS trades off with natural gas use

Renewable energy can save gas and reduce energy bills

SPS will decrease our dependence on foreign natural gas

Solar power eliminates the need for natural gas

Solar will replace natural gas – reliable source of electricity

Federal expansion of wind would be used to buffer natural gas imports

Expanding wind would offset natural gas imports

U.S. market is key – a large share of new exports will go there

1. The LNG Market — This Moment in History

Russian Gas Exports To The US

Natural gas exports are a critical component of the Russian economy.

Russian economic decline causes civil war—escalates and goes nuclear.

Strong U.S.-Russian relations are key to effective American leadership

Transportation routes will boost safety of LNG shipments to the U.S.

LNG. The real risks

Tankers aren’t terrorist targets and the impact will be limited

No impact—the worst case scenario kills 8,000

There are too many precautions for there to be a terrorist attack

RPS won’t reduce natural gas demand

RPS will expand use of national gas by lowering its price

A terrorist attack that would have the force of a nuclear explosion

Monitoring LNG imports is draining the Coast Guard’s resources

Inadequate U.S. security measures for facilities

Natural gas accidents are common and could kill thousands

Potrebbero piacerti anche