China, Cuba reported in Gulf oil partnership

[DrewQ45]

U.S. firms stand by, prohibited from bidding on contracts; lawmakers propose opening up U.S. coast for drilling.May 9, 2006: 10:12 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Plans for foreign oil companies, some from India and China, to drill off the cost of Cuba are prompting calls from lawmakers to ease environmental restrictions that prohibit coastal drilling in most of the U.S., according to a report Tuesday.

At a time of rising soaring gasoline prices caused partly by a lack of supply, legislators are fuming that Cuba is opening up its continental shelf for oil and gas exploration while most of the U.S. continental shelf outside the Gulf of Mexico, which extends 200 miles from shore, has been off limits for drilling since the early 1980s, the New York Times reported.

Firms from China and India will be drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba, but U.S. companies are prohibited from bidding on the contracts, according to a recent report.

Adding insult to injury, the Times said U.S. firms were invited to bid on the Cuban contracts, but were barred by the U.S. government due to the country's longstanding economic embargo of communist Cuba.

"Red China should not be left to drill for oil within spitting distance of our shores without competition from U.S. industries," Sen. Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho, told the Times.

Firms from Canada and Spain will also drill off the Cuban coast, the article said

Craig is introducing a bill to exempt U.S. oil firms from the embargo, much as food and drug firms are, according to the article.

There are also several bills moving through Congress aimed at opening up areas more areas of the U.S. to oil and gas exploration, including coastal waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Supporters of the bills, including the oil industry, say it would help bring down oil and gas prices and decrease the country's reliance on oil imports from the volatile Middle East.

Gasoline prices have soared 33 percent over the last year, while the price of crude oil has tripled since 2002.

But critics of more drilling say the energy obtained, which they say would be minimal and wouldn't bring down prices that much, isn't worth the environmental risks. They also say more drilling for a finite resource does nothing to promote long term conservation solutions.

Most coastal states also oppose offshore drilling, fearing unsightly rigs and oil spills will hurt their tourism industries.

The United States Geological Survey estimates the Cuban deal involves 4.6 billion barrels of oil and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Times. The paper said that's enough oil and gas to power the U.S. for a few months.

The paper also cited an Interior Department study that said the U.S. continental shelf contained 115 billion barrels of oil and 633 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That would be enough oil to satisfy U.S. demand, at current consumption levels, for 16 years and enough natural gas for 25 years, according to the Times

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/0...n=yes

[hannibal]

Cant have your cake and eat it too. Cuba is a sovereign nation. They can sell to whomever they please, and hold us to an 'embargo' of sorts.

We'll end buying all that oil eventually, no matter who's drilling for it.

And I never want to hear an oil company bitching about fairness or competition. Reinvest some of that $100 billion they made last year...

[DrewQ45]

T

Cant have your cake and eat it too. Cuba is a sovereign nation. They can sell to whomever they please, and hold us to an 'embargo' of sorts.

We'll end buying all that oil eventually, no matter who's drilling for it.

And I never want to hear an oil company bitching about fairness or competition. Reinvest some of that $100 billion they made last year...

Touche!.... Funny thing is, it's the US that is imposing their own self-embargo of sorts. The other parties are open to allowing them in. Eventually, the mighty dollar will have the last say.

[EQwhipD]

What is absolutely stupid about the trading 'embargo' with Cuba is that it is based on America's long-standing war against communism. The Cold War has ended, but the embargo still stands? I can understand that a lot of feathers were ruffled because of the missle crisis in '62, BUT Russia (Soviet Union) were the people placing missiles there; not Cuba. Lastly, if Communism is our enemy, why are we placing most-favorite trading status to China; an unapologetic Communist state? I guess we need enemies that don't place a realistic economic or military threat to the United States! My two cents.-Evan (NC)

[hannibal]

^ Agreed. And we're hoping to break into China's economy and take advantage of the largest consumer market in the world. WE have to try to reverse the severe trade deficit, and thats nearly impossible without China's quickly emerging economy.

As for Cuba, it seems like we're stubbornly playing the waiting game: we're just holding out til Castro kicks the bucket so we can say we 'won'.

[irax]

you guys understand that it's all JFK's fault... if bay of pigs never happend, the world would be a different place.

[Q45tech]

The rub is all those future lawsuits by American citizens from Cuba who had all their parents property seized by the Cuban State.The Bacardi's, the Fajul, for example.

There are 11.3 milion plus Cuban]s in Cuba and 1.3 million Cubans in US.

[maxnix]

We'll end buying all that oil eventually, no matter who's drilling for it.

I don't think you understand that China will get all of the oil that Cuba doesn't and will either consume it or barter it.

We are not alone on the world market.

[EQwhipD]

I agree withthe notion that China is not interested in attaining oil reserves and will resort to selling or barter, BUT they most likely will sell. China is smarter than we think. They learned from the mistakes of the Japanese in the eighties, where they (Japanese) were not interested in the accumulation of American dollars. The Japanese made the mistake in buying American properties etc (I.e. Hawaiian Golf Courses), but would have been a supreme economic powerhouse (and would have avoided the recession of the late nineties), if they had done as China. China has figured out that they can trade goods for American dollars. They are saving most all of the American dollars to place themselves as a legitimate economic powerhouse of the 21st century, where American will have less dollars than they do as a result of forever increasing trade deficits. This is sometihng my Econ professor taught my last semester in school, but it does make poeple think about the lasting consequences of trade deficits in the new global economy. (I just want G50 luxury pieces from the Nissan President, but I digress!)

my 4 cents,EQwhipD