Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: MarkC
The first "article" is not a very factual one, the USGS says ANWR's oil reserves are closer to 4.3 bb than the claimed 10.6.
Prudhoe Bay's record isn't as spotless as claimed either, though it is better than some anticpated.
Why continue to put up links to such "balanced" articles, which are nothing really but editorials coming from a certain prospective?
Quote:
In round numbers the study says there are between 6 and 16 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in the study area. The mean (average) is about 10 billion barrels (a little less than Prudhoe Bay, the largest oilfield in North America, has produced in the past 25 years).
http://www.anwr.org/archives/1002_is_where_the_oils_at.php
http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm
Also this just in:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365627,00.html
I went looking for a CNN version for you but all I found was this:
CNN LINK
P. The first linked site is a pro-drilling one.
The second is old, and did you actually read the Fox story?
""The disappointing part about some of the energy policies being promoted (is) that it calls for more drilling when drilling really is the problem. And all we've got to show for pretty aggressive (domestic) drilling for the last 35 years is, again, $4 for a gallon of gas," Manuel said, adding "since the first Arab oil shock in the 1970s, the U.S. has produced almost 90 billion barrels of oil since then, so we've tried drilling our way out of the problem and it just hasn't worked.""
BTW, I think you watch CNN more than I do(which isn't saying much).