/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Largest oil supplier to US



MRR
06-28-2006, 08:00 AM
Many people don't know that the largest supplier of oil to the US is Canada. A recent survey of americans showed that only 4% were aware that Canada was the largest supplier. With a new push from Canada to increase oil exports to the US, and the positive response from the americans, it seems that the eventual outcome will be a significant reduction in US dependance on mideast oil.
What do people here think the effect would be on people living in mideast countries? On world politics? mideast politics? on anything?:?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
lolwatever
06-28-2006, 08:02 AM
probably encourages the middle east to follow canada and do the same...:rollseyes
Reply

dianputri
06-28-2006, 08:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MRR
Many people don't know that the largest supplier of oil to the US is Canada. A recent survey of americans showed that only 4% were aware that Canada was the largest supplier. With a new push from Canada to increase oil exports to the US, and the positive response from the americans, it seems that the eventual outcome will be a significant reduction in US dependance on mideast oil.
What do people here think the effect would be on people living in mideast countries? On world politics? mideast politics? on anything?:?
really ?

i thought the largest oil supplier to US is kuwait, or Iran...
Reply

north_malaysian
06-28-2006, 08:13 AM
Middle East countries would gave their oil to India and China then. No sweat!!
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Joe98
06-28-2006, 11:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MRR
What do people here think the effect would be ........On world politics?
The current discussion in the West is on nuclear energy. Oil will lose out because of pollution.

And anybody can come and inspect the plants. There is no point getting anybody upset.
Reply

lavikor201
06-28-2006, 04:15 PM
When oil is no longer a factor the Saudi's might start crying.
Reply

Kidman
06-28-2006, 04:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by dianputri
really ?

i thought the largest oil supplier to US is kuwait, or Iran...
Iran wouldn't give oil to US
Reply

abdmez
06-28-2006, 05:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kidman
Iran wouldn't give oil to US
Plus, doesn't the USA refuse to trade with Iran since the hostage thing in there embassy?
Reply

Geronimo
06-28-2006, 06:14 PM
The US has had a trade embargo against Iran since 1979.
Reply

Fishman
06-28-2006, 06:23 PM
:sl:
The UAE will probably use its oil money to research nuclear fusion or something, and if it works, sell it to other countries.
:w:
Reply

lavikor201
06-28-2006, 08:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Geronimo
The US has had a trade embargo against Iran since 1979.
Correct. The USA would never accept Iranian oil. I am sure that Iran would love to suck in America and make the dependant on there oil.
Reply

Geronimo
06-28-2006, 09:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
Correct. The USA would never accept Iranian oil. I am sure that Iran would love to suck in America and make the dependant on there oil.
Here's another trivia question: Do you know who are the top three countries the US import their oil from?

1) Canada
2) Mexico
3) Saudi Arabia
Reply

Kidman
06-28-2006, 09:46 PM
let me guess

1) Canada
2) Mexico
3) Saudi Arabia
Reply

Ghazi
06-28-2006, 09:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
Correct. The USA would never accept Iranian oil. I am sure that Iran would love to suck in America and make the dependant on there oil.
:sl:

But I'm pretty sure they'll go in and invade and take it!
Reply

catmando
06-28-2006, 11:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kidman
let me guess

1) Canada
2) Mexico
3) Saudi Arabia
LOL

Now with Canada exploiting its vast reserves of oil sands in the Athabasca Range, our gluttonous oil dependence will continue till at least 2050. If the price drops to $50/barrel why conserve, why develop alternative energy?
Reply

mahdisoldier19
06-29-2006, 02:33 AM
LOL,

Wow, Yes Canada imports the most oil to USA,

But who has the Most Oil Reserves for the World Ahem coughs*Saudi Arabia* And Oil reserves are just as important as imported oil as canada does!~
Reply

snakelegs
06-29-2006, 02:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Middle East countries would gave their oil to India and China then. No sweat!!
that's true. india and china will both need a huge amount of oil for a long time to come.
Reply

Vishnu
06-29-2006, 04:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
that's true. india and china will both need a huge amount of oil for a long time to come.
I hope that we find other means so we dont have to rely on terrorist saudis.
Reply

catmando
06-29-2006, 04:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
LOL,

Wow, Yes Canada imports the most oil to USA,

But who has the Most Oil Reserves for the World Ahem coughs*Saudi Arabia* And Oil reserves are just as important as imported oil as canada does!~
The OPEC nations have consistently overextimated their proven reserves for years. I believe Canada and Venezuela are #1 and #2 now.
Reply

lavikor201
06-29-2006, 04:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by catmando
The OPEC nations have consistently overextimated their proven reserves for years. I believe Canada and Venezuela are #1 and #2 now.
Venezuala?
Reply

syilla
06-29-2006, 05:16 AM
i would love to boycott petrol...

but i can't... *sigh.

when will someone produce something else and make it commercial....
please do it fast....i will be the first one to buy it from you.
Reply

Panatella
06-29-2006, 05:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
LOL,
But who has the Most Oil Reserves for the World Ahem coughs*Saudi Arabia* And Oil reserves are just as important as imported oil as canada does!~
Wrong again, junior.

The OPEC nations have consistently overextimated their proven reserves for years. I believe Canada and Venezuela are #1 and #2 now.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn20664.htm
The worlds largest oil reserve is not lying under Saudi Arabian deserts or under the sea, it is clinging to grains of sand in the Canadian boreal forest of Northern Alberta.
http://www.canadacool.com/COOLFACTS/...MurrayOil.html
Fort McMurray sits on the largest known oil reserve in the world

Ok, now for the important part.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_.../FE06Dj01.html
OPEC's shocking oil reserve boondoggle
... significant evidence that oil reserves are being grossly overstated by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Campbell contends that OPEC reserve estimates are politically motivated.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...A5409C147E.htm
And while Saudi Arabia's national oil company Saudi Aramco claims to have 257.5 billion barrels, its recently retired executive vice president Sadad Al Husseini has said there is in fact "130 billion barrels of proven reserves".
*cough* well below Canada's proven 180 billion *cough*

http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=36107
Technical facts do not support many indicated oil reserves and claimed production increase of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries’ member states.
Not that I care who has more, the Canadians or the Saudis, it is just that blatant falsehood should not go unchecked.
Reply

dianputri
06-29-2006, 06:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Geronimo
The US has had a trade embargo against Iran since 1979.
ya,,because of that US now had one of the big oil factory in iran.
and,,that is occupation in economy,,
Reply

KAding
06-29-2006, 11:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by catmando
The OPEC nations have consistently overextimated their proven reserves for years. I believe Canada and Venezuela are #1 and #2 now.
You sure? I thought Saudi Arabia was #1 with a fairly large margin. And isn't venezuela part of OPEC? :)
Reply

abdmez
06-29-2006, 12:03 PM
Hmmm... never knew half of this stuff.
Reply

Kidman
06-29-2006, 02:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by dianputri
ya,,because of that US now had one of the big oil factory in iran.
and,,that is occupation in economy,,
I don't understand, please explain and you have proof also?? This is something i didn't know of...
Reply

Geronimo
06-29-2006, 02:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by dianputri
ya,,because of that US now had one of the big oil factory in iran.
and,,that is occupation in economy,,
You do know that makes no since right?
Reply

Geronimo
06-29-2006, 02:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
You sure? I thought Saudi Arabia was #1 with a fairly large margin. And isn't venezuela part of OPEC? :)
Venezuela is a part of OPEC and is number 4 on our oil imports
Reply

Panatella
06-29-2006, 03:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
You sure? I thought Saudi Arabia was #1 with a fairly large margin. And isn't venezuela part of OPEC? :)
Saudi is around 12% of US oil imports with Canada being around 17%.
Reply

Woodrow
06-29-2006, 03:51 PM
The main reason the US even imports any oil is because the environmentalists consistently block the use of US reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska.

It is all a moot point anyhow at the current world usage rate nearly all known oil reserves will be used up within 10 to 20 years. It is no longer a political ploy to find alternate energy sources, it is a necessity. We are rapidly finding out that Nuclear Energy does not hold the answer as once thought it would. Nuclear plants are proving to be more of a long term bio-hazard then what was ever suspected. It is virtualy impossible to dispose of nuclear waste in a safe manner.

The current proven world oil reserves are 1,292.550 Billions of barrels.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html


The current world usage of oil is: a little over 82 billion barrels per day. or roughly 30,000 Billions of Barrels per year. Which means that oil can come to an end in as little as 5 years, based on increased usage or in about 30 years based on no increase in usage. Reality is we can expect the oil reserves to last about 15 to 20 years. Remember, we do not make oil in a factory, it is pumped out of the ground. there is a limited amount and when it is gone, it is gone forever.
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
Reply

mahdisoldier19
06-29-2006, 04:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Panatella
Wrong again, junior.



http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn20664.htm


http://www.canadacool.com/COOLFACTS/...MurrayOil.html



Ok, now for the important part.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_.../FE06Dj01.html


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...A5409C147E.htm
*cough* well below Canada's proven 180 billion *cough*

http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=36107


Not that I care who has more, the Canadians or the Saudis, it is just that blatant falsehood should not go unchecked.

Stupidity again Little kid, considering im an Adult and you call me junior. So i will treat you with the same amount of respect you give me. As i said it stated PROVEN RESOURCES* lets go digout those unproven sources.
Reply

Kidman
06-29-2006, 04:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
The main reason the US even imports any oil is because the environmentalists consistently block the use of US reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska.

It is all a moot point anyhow at the current world usage rate nearly all known oil reserves will be used up within 10 to 20 years. It is no longer a political ploy to find alternate energy sources, it is a necessity. We are rapidly finding out that Nuclear Energy does not hold the answer as once thought it would. Nuclear plants are proving to be more of a long term bio-hazard then what was ever suspected. It is virtualy impossible to dispose of nuclear waste in a safe manner.

The current proven world oil reserves are 1,292.550 Billions of barrels.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html


The current world usage of oil is: a little over 82 billion barrels per day. or roughly 30,000 Billions of Barrels per year. Which means that oil can come to an end in as little as 5 years, based on increased usage or in about 30 years based on no increase in usage. Reality is we can expect the oil reserves to last about 15 to 20 years. Remember, we do not make oil in a factory, it is pumped out of the ground. there is a limited amount and when it is gone, it is gone forever.
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
5 years??? wooow, i didn't think it was that serious.
Reply

abdmez
06-29-2006, 04:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Kidman
5 years??? wooow, i didn't think it was that serious.
I don't believe it is. There is so much oil in Alaska and Canada it isn't even funny. It is just harder to produce because it is mixed in with with dirt or something like that, so it costs a lot to take it out of the ground.
Reply

Woodrow
06-29-2006, 05:22 PM
The five years was the worse scenario. Most geologists and economists expect the proven reserves to last 15 to 20 years.

There is another factor often overlooked. Who are the major oil companies with interest in the mid-eastern oil fields? (There are 7 of them). What is going to happen when diminishing profits reach the point of making the mid-eastern fields no longer a feasible source? I believe that is what will cause the fastest halt to oil production in the mid east and it will occur before the oil fields are depleted. I doubt very much that the major oil companies view mideastern oil as a reliable source anymore. This is the basis for the worse prediction of 5 years.

Nearly every company is researching alternative energy sources to render petroleum obsolete. Right now petroleum prices are high enough to make the developement of solar power and fuel cells an economic feasable alternative. t
They just might make petroleum unnecessary before it is depleted. The current hybred Engines on automobiles open the doors for the USA and other countries to be able to rely on their own reserves long enough for the development of non-petroleum dependent machinery. the age of Petroleum based energy has been a very short time. Just a little over 100 years. In that time the majority of the worlds petroleum has been depleted, we are down to the very bottom of the supply. The world lived and advanced without petroleum, much longer then it has relied upon it.
Reply

Woodrow
06-29-2006, 05:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by abdmez
I don't believe it is. There is so much oil in Alaska and Canada it isn't even funny. It is just harder to produce because it is mixed in with with dirt or something like that, so it costs a lot to take it out of the ground.
Actually no oil is ever found in true pools it is nearly always mixed with sand. The biggest problem with the Canada and Alaskan fields is in the frigid atmosphere. The petro comes out almost the consistency of tar and must be heated to pump. The pumping of it is probably the largest production expense.
Way on back when I worked for UOP (universal oil products, inc). We tried to discourage the Alaskan Pipline as it would take nearly as much oil to pump the oil as what is actually pumped. Our early estimate was it would take a years oil production to merely fill the line and it would take two years of production as fuel to operate the heaters and pumps to pump it. Three years of oil production to get the first drop transported. From then on only 50% of production would be delivered, the remaining 50% would be used for transportation energy. Good part is that since then, less fuel consuming methods of transportation were developed.
Reply

catmando
06-29-2006, 08:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
The main reason the US even imports any oil is because the environmentalists consistently block the use of US reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska.

It is all a moot point anyhow at the current world usage rate nearly all known oil reserves will be used up within 10 to 20 years. It is no longer a political ploy to find alternate energy sources, it is a necessity. We are rapidly finding out that Nuclear Energy does not hold the answer as once thought it would. Nuclear plants are proving to be more of a long term bio-hazard then what was ever suspected. It is virtualy impossible to dispose of nuclear waste in a safe manner.

The current proven world oil reserves are 1,292.550 Billions of barrels.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html


The current world usage of oil is: a little over 82 billion barrels per day. or roughly 30,000 Billions of Barrels per year. Which means that oil can come to an end in as little as 5 years, based on increased usage or in about 30 years based on no increase in usage. Reality is we can expect the oil reserves to last about 15 to 20 years. Remember, we do not make oil in a factory, it is pumped out of the ground. there is a limited amount and when it is gone, it is gone forever.
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
I was not aware that Gulf of Mexico oil production has been halted. As to ANWR, estimated reserves are from 6-18 months at our present rate of consumption, and if we opened the fields we would dry up our reserve supplies.

Your second paragraph is right on the money, but I think you have too many billions in your estimates(like Carl Sagan :D).
Reply

Vishnu
06-30-2006, 12:21 AM
I have heard reports that Canada has oil that is like in the ground mixed with other chemicals ect... and even though it is costly to seperate the oil from the undesirable chemicals... there is enough to last 100 years!
Reply

Panatella
06-30-2006, 04:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
Stupidity again Little kid, considering im an Adult and you call me junior. So i will treat you with the same amount of respect you give me. As i said it stated PROVEN RESOURCES* lets go digout those unproven sources.
Hmmm..., looks like those shoes don't fit yet. What are you doing back here!?
Well then Junior if you are an adult then start to act like one.

Silly insults aside, you have not read the information provided. Saudi does not have this vast amount of "unproven resources". They lied. Get it.
LOL! There is a good investment. Hey, invest in in our vast "unproven resources"! Look. If you had read the information through, you would have learned that it is coming to light that Saudi and most of the other OPEC countries do not have the amount of reserves they claimed.
So as it stands, the three countries leading in oil reserves in order of most to least are; Canada, Venezuela, and then Saudi.

Again, not that I really give a rat's a**. I really don't care how much oil either country has.

LOL!.....*unproven resources*........:giggling: ;D :lol:
Reply

Woodrow
06-30-2006, 04:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by catmando
I was not aware that Gulf of Mexico oil production has been halted. As to ANWR, estimated reserves are from 6-18 months at our present rate of consumption, and if we opened the fields we would dry up our reserve supplies.

Your second paragraph is right on the money, but I think you have too many billions in your estimates(like Carl Sagan :D).
The current oil production isn't halted, but new wells can not be drilled although exploration still continues.
Reply

Panatella
06-30-2006, 05:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Actually no oil is ever found in true pools it is nearly always mixed with sand. The biggest problem with the Canada and Alaskan fields is in the frigid atmosphere. The petro comes out almost the consistency of tar and must be heated to pump. The pumping of it is probably the largest production expense.
Way on back when I worked for UOP (universal oil products, inc). We tried to discourage the Alaskan Pipline as it would take nearly as much oil to pump the oil as what is actually pumped. Our early estimate was it would take a years oil production to merely fill the line and it would take two years of production as fuel to operate the heaters and pumps to pump it. Three years of oil production to get the first drop transported. From then on only 50% of production would be delivered, the remaining 50% would be used for transportation energy. Good part is that since then, less fuel consuming methods of transportation were developed.
I would like to offer a correction if I may Woodrow. The oil in the Athabasca tar sands is not pumped, it is mined. They mine it and extract the oil from the sand. Up until the last few years it was very expensive, but new technology in the last few years has made it profitable now.
Reply

Woodrow
06-30-2006, 05:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Panatella
I would like to offer a correction if I may Woodrow. The oil in the Athabasca tar sands is not pumped, it is mined. They mine it and extract the oil from the sand. Up until the last few years it was very expensive, but new technology in the last few years has made it profitable now.
Thank you Panatella, I was thinking the problem would be similar to Alaska's North Slope, where the jelling of the crude was the problem..


That is very interesting as it seems the same Technology could be used for extracting oil from oil shale. The estimated reserves locked up in oil shale in the US Rocky Mountains is huge. Back in the 1970s we were figuring it might be as much as 10 to 20 times more then the rest of the worlds supply, but we were unable to extract it.
Reply

snakelegs
06-30-2006, 05:25 AM
this has been an informative thread for me!
what about central asian oil? i've read that there are huge reserves. of course they need access to the sea (afghanistan!)
as for venezuela, well they have been getting quite uppity of late and seem to think the oil belongs to them or something. and the u.s. is too busy to invade venezuela.
Reply

snakelegs
06-30-2006, 05:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ganeshsikkim
I hope that we find other means so we dont have to rely on terrorist saudis.
what is the status of the proposed pipeline from iran to india?
of course it doesn't look very promising, if it depends on going through pakistan. the baluchis will see to that.
Reply

Woodrow
06-30-2006, 05:35 AM
I got interested in oil shale again. Just did a google and found this:

Unlocking The Future

The destruction of Hurricane Katrina shows the importance of a strategic petroleum reserve, or, more accurately, a
strategic energy reserve. But the SPR in Louisiana only holds about 800 million barrels of emergency, enough to get
the country through about 90 days of regular oil usage. That's barely a band-aid for a country that faces a potential
energy heart attack.

In other words, the future of oil shale may have finally arrived. Extracting oil from shale is no simple task, which
is why the reserves remain almost completely undeveloped. But an emerging new technology promises to unlock the
awesome potential of the oil shale.

"The technical groundwork may be in place for a fundamental shift in oil shale economics," the Rand Corporation
recently declared. "Advances in thermally conductive in-situ conversion may enable shale-derived oil to be
competitive with crude oil at prices below $40 per barrel. If this becomes the case, oil shale development may soon
occupy a very prominent position in the national energy agenda."

Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil - or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia. This energy bounty is simply too large to ignore any longer, assuming that the
reserves are economically viable. And yet, oil shale lies far from the radar screen of most investors.

But we here at The Daily Reckoning are on the case. Just yesterday, I caught a first-hand glimpse of a cutting-edge
oil shale project spearheaded by Shell. I trekked out to a barren moonscape in Colorado to tour the facility with
Shell geologists. To summarize my findings, oil shale holds tremendous promise, but the technologies that promise to
unlock this promise remain somewhat experimental. But sooner or later, the oil trapped in the shale of Colorado
will flow to the surface. And when it does, it will enrich investors who arrive early to the scene.

Can Oil Shale Change The World?

America's oil shale reserves are enormous, totaling at least 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. That's five times the
reserves of Saudi Arabia! And yet, no one is producing commercial quantities of oil from these vast deposits. All
that oil is still sitting right where God left it, buried under the vast landscapes of Colorado and Wyoming.

Obviously, there are some very real obstacles to oil production from shale. After all, if it was such a good
thing, we'd be doing it already, right? "Oil shale is the fuel of the future, and always will be," goes a popular
saying in Western Colorado.

My own personal thoughts on this is that it will not only reduce the cost of oil for much of the world, it would eliminate the incentive for a US presense in the mid east. Perhaps this can be a first step towards peace in that area.
Reply

MRR
07-18-2006, 01:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
LOL,

Wow, Yes Canada imports the most oil to USA,

But who has the Most Oil Reserves for the World Ahem coughs*Saudi Arabia* And Oil reserves are just as important as imported oil as canada does!~
Hey! Have you ever lived in Saudi Arabia? Cause if you haven't, I don't even want to hear from you until you go and live there for a few years. Then come back and talk to me about Saudi Arabia.
Reply

cbu-97
07-18-2006, 01:51 AM
Posted on Wed, Jul. 12, 2006
Senate approves expanded drilling in Gulf of Mexico
By Mark K. Matthews

The Orlando Sentinel

(MCT)

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senate leaders announced a compromise Wednesday that would expand oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico by millions of acres, but keep exploration at least 125 miles from Florida's western shoreline.

In the deal, Florida Sen. Mel Martinez appears to have gained a major concession by moving the buffer zone for drilling farther from his state's coastline than originally planned by Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici.

The agreement was announced by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Domenici, R-N.M., Martinez and lawmakers from other coastal states. Frist said it tries to strike a balance by tapping oil and gas reserves in the Gulf of Mexico while also protecting Florida's multibillion-dollar tourism industry.

The deal will "protect our shoreline," Martinez said.

But others were not so sure. Environmentalists are against expanding any exploration in the Gulf. They also note that the Senate plan would allow offshore development in an area of the eastern Gulf known as Lease Sale 181, where government bans have kept drilling off limits.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the deal seemed promising but was withholding support until he received assurances that it would not be watered down during negotiations with the House of Representatives.

The House's energy-exploration bill that passed last month is much more comprehensive than the Senate's, which focuses on drilling only in the Gulf of Mexico. The House bill sets a 50-mile drilling buffer throughout the entire U.S. coast, but would allow state Legislatures to expand that barrier to 100 miles.

After hearing Nelson's concerns, Frist could not guarantee there would be no concessions with the House along the way.

"This agreement will make America more energy-independent, reduce our reliance on foreign oil (and) strengthen our national security," said Frist, who expects a vote this month. Plus, he said, it "provides historic protection for the state of Florida."

Domenici predicted easy passage in the Senate.

Under the latest plan, the drilling protections for Florida's western coastline - as well as a military training area more than 230 miles west of Tampa - would expire in 2022.

Both the Senate and the more ambitious House plan have fractured a Florida delegation that long stood united against offshore drilling. But rising energy prices have put pressure on lawmakers to allow for more exploration.

This division was apparent Wednesday when Nelson arrived midway through the announcement to express his concerns. He and Martinez had both voiced serious problems with the House bill. But on Wednesday Nelson seemed to part company with Martinez.

"The devil's in the details," said the Florida Democrat.

Florida's two senators had been pushing a plan that would create a 150-mile buffer around the state and limit drilling in the Gulf of Mexico to 744,000 acres. But that idea received little support.

The proposal announced Wednesday builds on a measure pushed by Domenici and passed his energy committee in March. The Senate plan opens up 8 million acres, including 1.6 million in resource-rich Lease Sale 181.

A spokeswoman for the senate energy committee said the newly opened area would produce an estimated 1.25 billion barrels of oil and 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Martinez, a Republican, hailed the compromise as a success.

"I am thrilled and delighted that we got 125 miles for the people and Florida. It's a huge victory," Martinez said. As for the protections expiring in 2022, Martinez said he was not worried.

"I am very hopeful with America's ingenuity and America's know-how, and our commitment to less dependence on foreign sources of energy, that we will become less dependent on fossil fuels," he said. "I am very hopeful by that year, this won't even be an issue."

Gov. Jeb Bush also offered his support, praising Martinez for negotiating the best deal he could for Florida. He also expressed hope that the Senate and House would continue working to protect Florida's beaches from offshore drilling.

The Senate agreement also paves the way for other Gulf Coast states to share in federal revenue produced by the rigs if they do decide to allow drilling.

Louisiana could receive hundreds of millions of dollars over the next decade through revenue-sharing, according to Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana.

Environmentalists, who fought passage of the House bill, also said they were disappointed in Martinez and in the measure.

"It looks as if Sen. Martinez has decided to side with his leadership in the Senate and other pro-drilling senators rather than with the interests of Florida," said Mark Ferrulo, director of the Florida Public Interest Research Group.

Ferrulo is concerned that oil and natural gas rigs could lead to environmental accidents that could tar Florida's shore.

A spokesman for Rep. Clay Shaw, who heads the Florida delegation on the House side, said the Fort Lauderdale Republican did not support the plan.

---

© 2006, The Orlando Sentinel (Fla.).

Visit the Sentinel on the World Wide Web at http://www.orlandosentinel.com.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-28-2011, 10:16 PM
  2. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-16-2009, 06:42 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-30-2008, 12:44 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-25-2008, 08:47 AM
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-15-2006, 09:08 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!