Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Sorry that's not how it works. The guy making the claim is the guy
that has to back it up.

Sorry, but that *is* how it works. NOBODY can provide a
cite to an absense of information, which is what Matt is
requesting of me.



So you are admitting that you have no information. Great!





If *he* is correct, he can easily prove it by merely
citing a credible source that says there are in fact
"proven reserves" in ANWR. (He can't because there are
none.)

But there is nothing that I or anyone can cite that
proves there are no such sources.

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.

Estimates... that makes it, not a "proven reserve", but
what is called a "probable reserve". They are guessing
based on a lack of drilled wells to demonstrate that
there is *any* oil there at all.


To be intellectually honest there is no way to PROVE oil reserves short of
pumping it ALL out of the ground and counting the barrels. Until you do that
it is all an educated guess. So I posted an educated guess that there is
10.4 billion barrels under ANWR.

So to get he information and proof you want we have to pump what is there
out. I say we go for it. If when they empty it out and if we find you are
right and I am wrong I will publicly apologize. If the promise of my apology
isn't enough think how much money the big, mean oil companies will loose if
there isn't enough oil there. That should make you happy.