Chavez Shuts Down Free Speech!

[TW Scott]

Do you have even a shred of evidence to back up those outrageous claims?? If so, I'd sure like to see them!

The proof is Wikipedia for Venezuellas 77 billion barrels. Not credible in the least.

Not only that the survey posted is a widely debunked report on ANWR and managed to get the wrong information. On the mid end there are 11 billion barels of oil in ANWR and that is just in the areas we have tested, not the entire area. Sample areas being actully only 10% of the total.

Also as for Michigan I have evidence, several wells long thought exhasted have turned up oil again and not trickles either. In one case the pocket was nearly full again. A possibility considering the make up of oil shale in North America. I would not be surprised if a great deal of our capped wells have refilled at least partially as oil oozed out from the surrounding rock.

 

[hypewaders]

TW Scott: "you posted a widely debunked report on ANWR"

That is the U.S. Geological Survey's report. Specifically by whom has it been "widely debunked"?

"On the mid end there are 11 billion barels of oil in ANWR and that is just in the areas we have tested, not the entire area. Sample areas being actully only 10% of the total."

What? Where did you come up with that?

"as for michigan I have evidence"

Let's see it.

 

[Read-Only]

Your proof is Wikipedia fo Venezuellas 77 billion barrels. Not credible in the least.

Not only that you posted a widely debunked report on ANWR and managed to get the wrong information. On the mid end there are 11 billion barels of oil in ANWR and that is just in the areas we have tested, not the entire area. Sample areas being actully only 10% of the total.

Also as for michigan I have evidence, several wells long thought exhasted have turned up oil again and not trickles either. In one case the pocket was nearly full again. A possibility considering the make up of oil shale in North America. I would not be surprised if a great deal of our capped wells have refilled at least partially as oil oozed out from the surrounding rock.

You're TOTALLY nuts!! In the first place, I posted nothing - so how could I be wrong???????????????????????

 

[TW Scott]

Let's see it.

Come on over to Michigan and i will take you on a tour.



As for the other, I believe the professors at the Universit, especially Dietrich, above any government sponsored survey (especially our governement)

 

[TW Scott]

You're TOTALLY nuts!! In the first place, I posted nothing - so how could I be wrong???????????????????????

I'm nuts? Hmmm. I notice that becuase my information clashes with the information previously posted I must, of course, be nuts. Interesting debate technique.

 

[hypewaders]

TW Scott: "Come on over to Michigan and i will take you on a tour."

No sale. You're evading my challenge. If you have evidence for your wild claim about Michigan exceeding 101 billion barrels petroleum reserve, then post it. Otherwise, I must assume that you are just bullshitting.

"I believe the professors at the Universit, especially Dietrich"

What university? Dietrich who?

"I notice that becuase my information clashes with the infor previously posted I must of course be nuts."

Wrong. You appear to be nuts, because you are making extremely wild claims without any substantiation whatsoever.

 

[Read-Only]

I'm nuts? Hmmm. I notice that becuase my information clashes with the infor previously posted I must of course be nuts. Interesting debate technique.

No, I said you're nuts because you claimed I posted info that I did not. Do you also have problems with reading comprehension??????

And I still would like to see some solid information - not just some "he said" stuff.

 

[TW Scott]

TW Scott: "Come on over to Michigan and i will take you on a tour."

No sale. You're evading my challenge. If you have evidence for your wild claim about Michigan exceeding 101 billion barrels petroleum reserve, then post it. Otherwise, I must assume that you are just bullshitting.

I am avoiding nothing. I told you what happened and even offered to take you on tour. You are evading knowledge.

"I believe the professors at the Universit, especially Dietrich"

What university? Dietrich who?

Central Michigan University and Dr. Dietrich, who of course you have no clue of becuase he happens to only be one of the most brilliant minds in geology.

"I notice that becuase my information clashes with the information previously posted I must of course be nuts."

Wrong. You appear to be nuts, because you are making extremely wild claims without any substantiation whatsoever.

Extremely wild, what becuase I take the word of some the worlds most respected geologist or a survey team that is potentially in the pocket of environmentalists or a governemant agency infamous for misinformation in order to practice eminent domian.

 

[TW Scott]

No, I said you're nuts because you claimed I posted info that I did not. Do you also have problems with reading comprehension??????

And I still would like to see some solid information - not just some "he said" stuff.

My post was not directed at you? In fact it was accusation free as to who posted as you can read in the original. I think perhaps your paranoia is sneaking up on you.

As for solid information you are trusting to two posted reports that are nothing but "he said"

 

[hypewaders]

"I told you what happened and even offered to take you on tour."

I didn't ask for a personal tour. I'm asking you to post a link to information supporting your wild claims.

"a survey team that is potentially in the pocket of environmentalists or a governemant agency"

Nice try covering all the bases there. That's your idea of refuting a USGS report? Pathetic.

Try and post something intelligent, while I go and see what I can find from Dr. Dietrich at CMU.

 

[TW Scott]

"I told you what happened and even offered to take you on tour."

I didn't ask for a personal tour. I'm asking you to post a link to information supporting your wild claims.

Show me how i can link to a converstaion with local drillers and I will kindly do so. Otherwise you have to come talk to them

"a survey team that is potentially in the pocket of environmentalists or a governemant agency"

Nice try covering all the bases there. Potentially in the pocket of environmentalists or a government agency. That's your idea of refuting a USGS report? Pathetic.

You forgot the rest it was survey team or governement agency. Obviously you have a problem with competing information. It's a shame, you'll never learn. Of course the only way to be sure is if we exploit the oil from that area and tally it up, could take a hundred years

 

[hypewaders]

Well, Dr. Richard Dietrich has got some very nice mimetoliths, but I've discovered none of his geological breakthroughs- certainly nothing resembling the astounding discovery of the world's 3rd richest petroleum reserves in Michigan. A little help, please, TW?

 

[hypewaders]

"Show me how i can link to a converstaion with local drillers"

So you have conversed with local drillers, who told you that they have discovered reserves exceeding 101 billion barrels of oil in Michigan. What else did they tell you?

"the only way to be sure is if we exploit the oil from that area and tally it up, could take a hundred years"

No, we have a science for that, called geology. I know you've heard of it, but apparently you haven't yet grasped what it's about.

 

[TW Scott]

Well, Dr. Richard Dietrich has got some very nice mimetoliths, but I've discovered none of his geological breakthroughs- certainly nothing resembling the astounding discovery of the world's 3rd richest petroleum reserves in Michigan. A little help, please, TW?

Did I say he discovered the Oil? Please help me. He was the one I asked about the oil shale, explaining quite well that North American Oil shale was rife with cracks fissures and even some porous spots, unlike the rest of the world. This could lead to vast reserves of oil being held in the shale as opposed in pockets like middle eastern and Venezuelan oil desposits.

It the well owners themselves who noticed that capped wells were striking all over again. Perhaps not as richly as the first time, but from empty to even a quarter full is an interesting thing. I was merely talking to accredited geologists to see what the cuases would be.

 

[sandy]

...sandy: "If we would have drilled ANWR when we originally wanted to, we would be fine by now. "
ANWR would yield a total of 10,360 million barrels over at least a decade of aggressive exploitation. Venezuela has 77.2 billion barrels and most of the requisite infrastructure already in place.
So, what you suggest is like replacing $100 with $.013, or about one tenth of a penny. After several years' development. That's not a very good deal, Sandy. Please think harder, and try again.

Disagree. We won't know for sure until we actually drill, but the word is we have more than plenty to keep us supplied for years. It's the whiney-@ss liberal tree-hugging enviro-wackos that SCREAM everytime we try to pass legislation to drill our own country. And TW is correct.

 

[hypewaders]

TW Scott: "...that North American Oil shale was rife with cracks fissures and even some porous spots, unlike the rest of the world. This could lead to vast reserves of oil being held in the shale..."

OK, if that's the best you can do, let's just agree that your statement "There is more Oil under Michigan than in Kuwait" was an extreme exaggeration, and move on.

 

[TW Scott]

"Show me how i can link to a converstaion with local drillers"

So you have conversed with local drillers, who told you that they have discovered reserves exceeding 101 billion barrels of oil in Michigan. What else did they tell you?

They did not say 101 billion. They very well could have been exaggerating, but then again for a state this size and the weels seem to be refilling it's not hard to imagine that the find will be significant if it not just an isolated event.

"the only way to be sure is if we exploit the oil from that area and tally it up, could take a hundred years"

No, we have a science for that, called geology. I know you've heard of it, but apparently you haven't yet grasped what it's about.

And any geologuist will tell that when it comes to oil, even today it is a guess.


Now get off your high horse. Unless you have personal knowlege all you are posting is someones elses bullshit.

 

[hypewaders]

sandy: "the word is we have more than plenty [of oil in ANWR] to keep us supplied for years."

Another baseless claim. TW was doing fine digging a dry hole all by himself, sandy. So you come in with "The word is" ?

Sources, please. This is not Fantasy Forums.

TW Scott: "Unless you have personal knowlege all you are posting is someones elses bullshit."

That's not the scientific method, TW. Restricting your knowledge to direct personal experience would be severely debilitating. Learn how to source and compare credible information, and you are sure to find yourself in closer touch with the real world.

"They very well could have been exaggerating"

Thank you. Now take my nag for a ride, if you like.

 

[Read-Only]

They did not say 101 billion. They very well could have been exaggerating, but then again for a state this size and the weels seem to be refilling it's not hard to imagine that the find will be significant if it not just an isolated event.




And any geologuist will tell that when it comes to oil, even today it is a guess.


Now get off your high horse. Unless you have personal knowlege all you are posting is someones elses bullshit.

Ha-ha-ha-ha!!!! Look who's talking about personal knowledge - the guy who was told something by someone else! Talk about backpedaling while calling the kettle black. Wow!!! Your line of BS is enough to put politicians to shame. (I may fall off my chair laughing at this little nutcase.)

 

[Exhumed]

Come on over to Michigan and i will take you on a tour.

I'm in Michigan. Please tell me this oil is somewhere in my back yard!

Seriously though... If there was oil here we would be pursuing it.