Skip to main content

Who would you rather see drill for oil off the coast of Florida: Brazil, China, Venezuela or the US?


This from Fausta's Blog:

Brazilian state oil company Petrobras is studying a block in deep Cuban waters for possible exploration as part of broader cooperation with the Caribbean island, a top advisor to the company said on Friday.

"We are planning to cooperate not only in exploration and production, but lubricants, refining and training," Andre Ghirardi told Reuters in Havana at a one-day meeting of Brazilian and Cuban businessmen....

The US Geological Survey estimated the North Cuba basin could contain 4.6 billion barrels of oil, with a high-end potential of 9.3 billion barrels, and close to 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.


China and Venezuela have already initiated the first stages of drilling in the North Cuba basin.

Facts about foreign drilling immediately off our shores:

1) We have no control over the environmental impact of these operations as they take place in international waters.

2) All three nations pursue oil with State-owned companies, which generally pay their government 50% profits off the top before the product is offered on the world market (ala Sonangol in Angola). Therefore foreign oil off the Florida coast will not necessarily be cheaper than oil imported from Africa, the North Sea, or the Middle East.

So explain to me again why you'd rather have foreign countries and not American companies selling us oil for the next few decades?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Never say, I did not say we should be working together. Cooperation was possible with China, Cuba, Brazil and Venezuela and it still is! BP is doing it, and the Nowegians are doing it and they are not playing power politics. They are playing the game of mututal benefit without regard to the political orientation of the country. I do not see why we cannot do the same thing?

Easing the embargo on Cuba, while lifting our restrictions on drilling off our own coast. Getting Valero to take a more active role, and easing domestic demanding for natural gas through offshore wind and clean coal and alternative production at home for housing needs....Even if it means that it is worthwhile going into offshore areas around Russia where there is a shit load of untapped oil, or buying sugarcane from Brazil, Cuba and Venezuela in a sharing program. It is a hell of a lot better than being left out of all the important decisions that the world makes. We had a chance to make a great deal with the Indian oil companies and we let it go for political reasons....We have a chance to really assist in the development of the Americas if we take the pan-American approach of Jefferson or the good neighbor approach of FDR. That is why I was scraeming about chaning policy, I was hoping we would not have to see the the day when a big country or UNASUR decides it needs to protect its interests to the exlcusion of ours. Have we completely forgotten Jefferson's and FDR's policies? These words "peaceful commerce with all, entagling alliances with none..." does that mean anything anymore? How much prosperity and peace are we willing to sacrifice to maintain a hostile position toward our neighbors to the south?

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...