Skip to comments.
Senate leaders strike deal on offshore drilling
Reuters ^
| July 12, 2006
Posted on 07/12/2006 1:34:22 PM PDT by RWR8189
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate have struck a deal with key party members including Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida that would allow the chamber to vote on opening the eastern Gulf of Mexico to energy exploration, Senate aides said on Wednesday.
Sen. Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, is pressing for a vote this month on a plan that would develop the Outer Continental Shelf off Florida, including a controversial area known as "Lease Sale 181."
Domenici and Martinez met with Majority Leader Bill Frist on Tuesday, and have struck a deal that will allow the legislation to proceed to a vote in coming days, aides said on condition of anonymity.
Lawmakers including Frist and Domenici are expected to announce the deal later Wednesday, aides said.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: drilling; energy; energyexploration; florida; ocs; offshoredrilling; oil; oilexploration; senate; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
1
posted on
07/12/2006 1:34:29 PM PDT
by
RWR8189
To: JulieRNR21; kinganamort; katherineisgreat; floriduh voter; summer; Goldwater Girl; windchime; ...
Florida Freeper

2
posted on
07/12/2006 1:36:01 PM PDT
by
Joe Brower
(The Constitution defines Conservatism. *NRA*)
To: RWR8189
Looks like the oil prices are putting pressure on the usual suspects, though I won't hold my breath.
To: RWR8189
And I give the Democrats exactly 30 seconds when this thing hits the Senate floor to filibuster it. And from our side, rather than drenching the airwaves with assaults on the Democrats and their refusal to allow increased domestic energy production and wanting to keep energy prices high even as they attack the president for that, we'll hear the sounds of crickets.
4
posted on
07/12/2006 1:40:27 PM PDT
by
MikeA
To: RWR8189
The Pubs will back down as soon as the relentless assault begins by the envirolefistwackos and their friends in the MSM.
5
posted on
07/12/2006 1:40:27 PM PDT
by
capydick
(Not to know is bad; not to wish to know is worse.)
To: RWR8189
I would hope the absence of environmetal disasters in the GOM following hurricanes Katrina and Rita would make an impression on someone!
To: RWR8189
Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate have struck a deal with key party members including Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida that would allow the chamber to vote on opening the eastern Gulf of Mexico to energy exploration, Senate aides said on Wednesday. Vote...., possibly..., actual passage of anything..., marginal at best..., actual exploratory drilling..., remote..., oil/gas production... I hope I will live that long!
7
posted on
07/12/2006 1:42:11 PM PDT
by
ExSES
(the "bottom-line")
To: RWR8189
Getting out the popcorn...and not holding my breath.
8
posted on
07/12/2006 1:50:17 PM PDT
by
SaxxonWoods
(Free Iran! WARNING! Forbidden Cartoon: .. . *-O)) :-{>. . . .)
To: RWR8189
According to Martinez's office, the drilling deal is for 125 miles out...no closer...Even Bill "thumbs up to Michael Moore" Nelson has signed off on the deal.
Half a loaf is better than none.
9
posted on
07/12/2006 1:54:48 PM PDT
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of "dependence on government"!)
To: MikeA; All
According to Martinez's office, the drilling deal is for 125 miles out...no closer...Even Bill "thumbs up to Michael Moore" Nelson has signed off on the deal.
Half a loaf is better than none.
10
posted on
07/12/2006 1:55:18 PM PDT
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of "dependence on government"!)
To: RWR8189
Oil is now $75 a barrel.
Can the idiots who vote against this just get a tattoo on their forehead that says "I luv imported oil"?
That will make it simpler to keep track of 'em.
11
posted on
07/12/2006 2:06:12 PM PDT
by
WOSG
To: MikeA
And I give the Democrats exactly 30 seconds when this thing hits the Senate floor to filibuster it. And from our side, rather than drenching the airwaves with assaults on the Democrats and their refusal to allow increased domestic energy production and wanting to keep energy prices high even as they attack the president for that, we'll hear the sounds of crickets. There is a chance you might hear some backtracking, cowering, apologizing, groveling, and other acts of spinlessness.
To: WOSG
Hey now...
We need sustained prices above $70 per BBL to economically justify heavy oil and oil shale. We need sustained prices above $55/$60 per BBL to justify the Alberta Oil Sands.
There are good things about high oil prices.
Even opening up the ENTIRE Gulf to drilling will take at least 10 years to get the oil to have a difference in the marketplace.
13
posted on
07/12/2006 2:16:35 PM PDT
by
Solson
(magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri.)
To: Recovering_Democrat
>>
According to Martinez's office, the drilling deal is for 125 miles out...no closer...
<<
Nobody is being honest when they say we "depend" on foreign oil if we continue to outlaw US drilling on tens of thousands of square miles of US land.
To: Recovering_Democrat
125 miles out...no closer... At least we can get it before Castro sucks it all away. Once it's established that far out and no problems occur - if they haven't off LA why should they off FL - it will be politically easier to move the limit in closer.
To: Solson
Tar sands crude costs about $22/bbl.
To: Eric in the Ozarks
You sure about that, Eric? My contact at Shiningbank Energy keeps quoting US $36-37/bbl for tar-sand light.
17
posted on
07/12/2006 2:42:45 PM PDT
by
SAJ
(Who doesn't jump is a French! (FReeper 'an italian'))
To: Solson
The authorization to develop energy in any form (off-shore oil, Alaska oil, nuclear, or whatever), will immediately encourage greater production of oil from sources already in production. This is because the flow of oil is not fixed, but a variable, and depends - among other things - on the ratio of prices today to expected prices tomorrow. With new authorization, producers will be inclined to "rush" as much product to market as they can, while prices are still high.
To: JohnBovenmyer
Yes, and Castro will be able to drill only 45 miles offshore from Florida
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14273915.htm
Castro could drill off Florida coastU.S. lawmakers aren't the only ones who, because of spiraling oil and gas prices and an unstable commodities market, have been studying the possibility of producing more domestic energy. Fidel Castro has also taken an interest, and his ambitions will, in a surprisingly short period of time, bring the Cuban drilling program much closer to the Florida coast.
Who can blame him? Castro has for years looked for new opportunities to develop his economy in the face of our trade embargo. He could only expect to rely on Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's oil and gas giveaway for so long. So, with the intention of claiming billions of dollars in new revenues and reducing his country's dependence on foreign energy, Castro has taken to the high seas in an effort to acquire and produce as much oil and gas as he can.
But there's a rub: Cuba has neither the capacity nor the technical capability to produce this energy by itself. Castro has called in contractors from Canada, Spain, Norway -- even China -- to do it for him.
And not only has Cuba convened its own little United Nations to help get at vital and abundant supplies of offshore energy, it has chosen tracts of real estate in the Gulf of Mexico as close as 45 miles from Florida. Forty-five miles is just a bit farther than the distance between the University of Miami and Fort Lauderdale.
Imagine what Castro is thinking as we spend our time quarreling over whether we should produce American energy 100, 150 or 250 miles from the Florida coast while he makes arrangements to set up shop hundreds of miles closer. He must love that we've allowed emotion to win out over reason, facts to be dwarfed by fear and our nation's energy policy to be driven by unreasonable environmental concerns.
JOHN E. PETERSON, representative, 5th Congressional District, Penn.
To: Solson
We need sustained prices above $70 per BBL to economically justify heavy oil and oil shale. We need sustained prices above $55/$60 per BBL to justify the Alberta Oil Sands. Not True. Alberta Oil Sands have been producing oil long before prices were this high. High prices have spurred increased Alberta Oil Sands for the same reason they spurred enhanced oil recovery of traditional reservoirs elsewhere. Shell believes they can economically produce oil shale below $30/barrel.
20
posted on
07/12/2006 2:53:33 PM PDT
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson