Offshore oil drilling in the United States should be legalized

Clarifications1. Petrobras is not a majority shareholder. His argument about unilateral control would be right, as I said, IF, this were true. Having the most shares in not having a majority of them. The very definition of majority specifies having more than half of something. Here's the reality of the matter, public companies are, in fact, "like a committee or something[. ]" There still have to be board meetings to make decisions based on share-holder votes. The United States' voice is almost as large as Brazil's. However, to be clear, this share-distribution sub-debate is based on the current distribution in the status quo. As I stated from the beginning of the round, my advocacy is that the United States would be "continuing to invest in Petrobras[. ]" This means that we would soon have more shares than Brazil as we have been investing more rapidly into the company. If my opponent's argument is true, then that just goes to show all the great things we can do when we are in charge. Sadly enough it's not true as unless you own 50% of the company, you cannot make unilateral decisions.2. As for Brazil diluting funds, first of all they can't, because they don't have unilateral control over the company. The evidence clearly shows that Brazil is dedicated to cutting spending, but my opponent argues that this increases the chances of funds being siphoned to fill monetary holes. This however, is not true. By cutting spending you are reducing monetary holes by reducing the necessity for money in the first place. My opponent has failed to show how spending less makes a country poorer, thus increasing the need to steal money from a public company. But alas, Brazil cannot take this action regardless.3. Let me clarify the purpose of referencing the lend-lease act. I wasn't claiming that the Bush Plan would function in the mold of the lend-lease act, but rather cited the act as a way to conceptualize how leases function legally. Not all leases demand military bases in return. Most of them simply require payment, which the British could not afford during WWII, but Brazil can now. The last time I checked, car leases don't require military bases in exchange either, but I could be wrong. The point is: The United States Federal Government can lease out water rights to Petrobras and allow them to drill without actually legalizing drilling, just as the United States leased out tanks for use in war without declaring war.4. My opponent states, "Con wishes for me to actually refute his argument of Petrobras drilling in our lands, and I will. " I would like to make it very clear that my opponent is making new arguments in his final speech due to his refusal to make them sooner. When he set the rules for this debate he stated that in round 4 there would be "[n]o new arguments[. ]" Based on the rules he established, he is not allowed to make these arguments and they should be disregarded. Nonetheless the individual claims will be addressed as I compare advantages between our advocacies. Comparative AnalysisEconomicsA. Petrobras1. Petrobras is already established and successful. They have rigs around the world and work internationally. If they weren't competent then their reputation would not be as impeccable as it is.2. The impacts are being seen immediately, with a $224 billion exploration plan continuing throughout 2014 and 174 new rigs being built in September. My opponent claims that it will take 6-10 years for Petrobras to set-up. However, Petrobras already has rigs, in the status quo. If my opponent is claiming that this is the time it would require Petrobras to set up in American waters then I would like to point out that it is arbitrary and there is no warrant to back up the claim presented. Furthermore, Petrobras already has many of the supplies needed for rigs while American companies would not only have to be formed, but also hire faculty and charter waters to build these rigs. Petrobras is able to establish itself in American waters faster.3. While we can invest more money and still spend less than we would on American Companies, no additional investing is required to see economic benefits. Petrobras is a public company, we own 24.5% of the shares so we get 24.5% of the profit. B. The United States1. There is no established history of American success with offshore oil-drilling provided by my opponent. There is no evidence in the round explaining why American company's will be able to utilize the oil reserves in American waters any better than Petrobras. My opponent states in his last speech that there are "pre-established oil rigs" but provides no reason to believe that they are U. S. owned, safe, or even operable. They may be so far out-of-date that we must spend even more time removing them and building new ones. There is no reason to believe the US companies are a safe choice.2. Time frame of 19 years. My opponent tries to say in his last speech that it is simply greater than 6 years, but fails to explain why this number is preferable to the time frame I've warranted. His own evidence states that the impacts will not be seen until 2030, which is 19 years from now. Even if we accept his time frame, I still reach the impacts much sooner.3. American companies have to be formed, staff must be hired, materials must be bought. This process will cost a lot more money that what we must spend on Petrobras at this point (not a penny). The start-up costs are simply too much of a detriment. I'm winning that Petrobras is more economical because:1. The time frame is much sooner.2. The impacts include everything American companies can do, as well as international prospects.3. There is less of an investment needed, if any at all.4. There is no reason why American Companies are more efficient in any aspect than Petrobras. EnvironmentOverviewThe most important argument in the round is whether or not Petrobras is more economical for the United States than American companies, however I will also address the environmental concerns my opponent has. First of all, he still doesn't explain why the exact area of oil drilling is vital to lower seepage. Does the seepage stay in one geographical location, or do ocean currents disperse it? This is important to know, as if it is dispersed then location is irrelevant. My opponent, however, fails to provide us with this essential piece of information. In addition, there is no reason why Petrobras will not be able to lease water rights on the coasts. Thus, the oil seepage point garners offense for neither side of the debate. A. PetrobrasI provided evidence within my opening argument about the Capuava Refinery's environmentally-friendly zero effluent disposal statistics. This is the first refinery ever to do this, showing why Petrobras is on the edge of innovation when if comes to the environment. B. The United StatesThe Hahn-Passell study's claim that technology will prevent oil spills is an argument in favor of American companies. However, I would like refer you back to my argument made against it in round 2 that is not responded to: "Also we can look at how the deep-water horizon spill effected the economy negatively, and this happened ONE MONTH before the study was released. The authors obviously aren't paying attention to the actual technology being used and its current failures. "If there is no reason to prefer either option economically, I have advantages environmentally that American companies cannot match. Closing NoteI would like to make it explicitly clear that my opponent messaged me soon after I posted my last argument and thoroughly apologized for his rude tactics. I have accepted this apology and hope that this round leaves no ill-thoughts in the minds of the judges of my opponent as a debater. Parts of this speech were written before I saw his message, and if I by chance failed to change any syntax of my language or references to him being rude, I apologize.