"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
Bob Fry wrote:
"MB" == Matt Barrow writes:
MB Got a cite for that?
Usenet ain't a peer reviewed journal, ferchrissake.
Requests for
"cites" are almost always a signal the requestor has been
effectively out-argued. If the requestor really wanted a cite
they'd google for it.

No, it is a sign that the requester thinks the person
making the claim is wrong. And, often on the internet
this is the case.

So when are *you* going to provide any indication that
someone (that you can cite) thinks there are proven
reserves in ANWR?

Sorry that's not how it works. The guy making the claim is the guy that
has to back it up.

But the first result of a Google search of "ANWR oil reserves" gives this
link.

http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm

Which in part says, "The Coastal Plain of ANWR's 1002 area is the nation's
single greatest onshore oil reserve. The USGS estimates that it contains a
mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable
oil. To put that into context, the potential daily production from ANWR's
1002 area is larger than the current daily onshore oil production of any
of the lower 48 states."


Forget it, GIg! Davidson IHWITHI has had his ass handed to him in several
other groups in the past, but he's like a terminal virus.