If my friend had said he and his date had merely been "exploring" (heh– to bring back the oil terms), he would be free and clear.

If a friend of mine said he had "drilled" some chick he met at a bar, and it turned out they had merely necked or petted, I would indeed give him hell. Words matter. You are sloppy about word use when it suits you. I know you know better. Drilling is drilling is drilling is drilling.

I also corrected my error in direction. My question, slightly modified, still stands.

Now who's indulging in "a cheap way of framing the argument… [that] ignores common sense"? Why use the word "drilling" and emphasize, as Cheney et al did, that it's happening in the present tense? McClatchy says specifically that there is "exploration". Why didn't your pals? Because we're into election season, that's why, and if it were only a matter of the medium-term future, it wouldn't rile those who filled up their tanks this week.

The Western diplomats, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media about energy issues, said they believed there is no new drilling occurring off the coast of Cuba, just exploration.

J: "So they can work onshore east of Havana, but they can’t touch that 100 million barrel goodie bag of oil that’s also east of Havana?"

You've mixed up east and west, in a rankly incompetent manner.

From the McC article: "China's Sinopec oil company does have an agreement with the Cuban government, but it's to develop onshore resources west of Havana"

Dur.