Offshore oil drilling in the United States should be legalized

I will first start by attacking my opponents points, then going on to defending my own. I feel that Con has seriously misjudged Petrobras and it's potential, which I will elaborate on. But first it is important to point out that Con, on multiple occasions, agreed with the resolution throughout his debate. "This means that all of the impacts my opponent claim out of the Affirmative Case (AC) reference the amount of available oil can still be accessed through my advocacy." The only way to access said oil is by offshore drilling; not Petrobras drilling along our coasts, a notion that is complete lunacy, but us drilling along the coast. Again, he states "My opponent claims that oil drilling is enough to lower seepage, it doesn't matter who is doing the drilling." Is Con advocating for foreign companies to drill in OUR lands? That makes NO sense whatsoever. And again, it goes against Con's position on the resolution, helping me with this case. Do you really think we would make it illegal to drill in these areas, then let Petrobras come in and do it, then reap the rewards? The idea is ridiculous, but enough nitpicking. Time to move on to the big claims he made. Con has seriously misjudged the value of Petrobras and the level of dependency we should throw at it. His claim is that they are a publicly owned company, and therefore we would: A) Reap many economic benefits from them as "partners" The serious problem that my opponent hasn't calculated is the nature of stocks and public companies. Right now, just by visiting the homepage of Petrobras, I can see that BRAZIL owns over 50% of the stocks [http://www.petrobras.com.br...], meaning that they control the company politically and economically. Nothing happens without their say-so, and I doubt a country that is trying to compete with us economically and hasn't really had the best of standing with us in the past is going to let ANY amount of money through to us, let alone an amount that can match the figures from my studies. Take Hugo Chavez in Venezuela for example. He siphons so much money from the oil drilling companies and directs it towards other things he feels are more important. The same exact thing can happen with Brazil, only it doesn't have to be the wants of a dictator, but if they decide they need the money for a better education system, or a larger economic trade expanse in the world; after all, they are trying to be a top economic dog, as my opponent had stated. This isn't a cycle that investors will ever benefit from; this is a public company, and it's controlled by Brazil. Anyone thinking it's a good idea to dump money into a foreign nations hands, especially one that is trying to get a boost up economically, is quite clearly not thinking. Let's follow this simple layout of the situation to see logically why Con's "Advantage 1- Economics" falls and is invalid. 1. Petrobras is a public company 2. Public companies have stock 3. The largest shareholder of stock determines where the money is re-invested 4. Brazil is the largest shareholder of stock for Petrobras It is quite clear that although Petrobras is a public company, it is NOT an acceptable alternative for my proposed offshore drilling, nor is it even a feasible one at this point, seeing as we could very well end up broke by "hoping" that Petrobras pays off, which is what we would have to rely on; hope. B) Establish international relations My opponent claims that by buying shares of Petrobras, we would somehow be creating economic ties to all the countries that deal with Petrobras. There are a couple problems with this actually being a big deal. For starters, even though my opponent has given no actual names of what specific countries Petrobras deals with, it is more than likely that the United States of America, the leading economy of the world, has economic ties to most, if not all, of those countries already. Also, like I stated before, Petrobras is basically owned by Brazil, so if Brazil decides to direct the funds from Petrobras into something internal, these countries would not benefit. I would actually like to know how Con suggests that we would be forming such crucial relations with foreign countries by investing in an oil company. It sounds too outlandish, and because of Petrobras's unstable situation, not a feasible suggestion either. Both of my opponents points have failed due to the overlooked fact of Petrobras being controlled by Brazil. Let the reader not be misguided by Con in trying to refute my points, for I will clarify them to the extent which they will be non-refutable and solid. 1. Cuts reliance on foreign oil In 2010, the United States imported a rough total of 3,344,485,000 barrels of crude oil (http://www.eia.gov...). The highest amount per month that Petrobras has EVER exported was March 2010, reaching 22.73 million barrels of oil (http://www.ordons.com...). Let's just say every month they stay consistent with this number. At the end of the year, you are looking at 272 million barrels of oil. According to the evidence, Petrobras cannot even supply us with a third of the oil we need, and that's if we were buying up ALL of their oil they exported. Let's not forget those 27 other countries Con mentioned. This leads the United States to HAVE to buy oil from other sources, bringing us all back to my point of reliance on foreign oil. I would like Con to tell all of us how this would not be so, seeing as all the numbers point to it being impossible to simply invest in Pestrobras for all our oil. 2. Increase in Economic Activity My opponent asks for a time frame of how long it would take to set up oil drilling. It would take about 6 years for the oil to hit the market (http://articles.sfgate.com...), but that doesn't mean it isn't a solution. It takes time to properly survey a site and construct the drills, keeping everything well maintained and making sure there are NO errors, so as to avoid an environmental problem. To make it simple, we need oil to survive as a country, and the sooner we start exploring these options, the better. Think of it this way. Should a long term cigarette smoker continue to smoke cigarette's simply because it would take a long time for them to actually quit and notice a difference in their health? Absolutely not. 3. Oil drilling lowers pressure of natural oil seepage Con has not properly refuted this, simply stating that Petrobras is, yet again, the answer and savior. It's complete lunacy to say we can't drill off our shores, but Petrobras can. It goes against my resolution, making Con's refutations invalid, and leaving my point standing. In conclusion, Con seems to thin it's a good idea to invest TAX PAYERS DOLLARS into a foreign controlled business that I have proved isn't reliable. I have properly refuted it by citing the Petrobras site and sharing that Brazil owns Petrobras through stocks, while Con hasn't managed to give a proper refutation to all my points, which are all standing. It's like putting all your eggs in one basket, and the basket has holes in it. Big holes. Back to Con for the last post of Round 3