Horace Heffner wrote:
On Jul 30, 2008, at 5:25 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Thank you, Horace!
Now, I wonder where Devoir got that 412 gBBL number? Sure doesn't
seem to be in the report. Seems like they must have conflated the oil
and gas numbers using some kind of conversion factor t
On Jul 30, 2008, at 5:25 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Thank you, Horace!
Now, I wonder where Devoir got that 412 gBBL number? Sure doesn't
seem to be in the report. Seems like they must have conflated the
oil and gas numbers using some kind of conversion factor to turn
cubic feet of
Thank you, Horace!
Now, I wonder where Devoir got that 412 gBBL number? Sure doesn't seem
to be in the report. Seems like they must have conflated the oil and
gas numbers using some kind of conversion factor to turn cubic feet of
natural gas into barrels of petroleum.
Horace Heffner wrote
On Jul 29, 2008, at 5:16 AM, Brian Prothro wrote:
I will be
interested to hear more on this.
Brian Prothro
http://tinyurl.com/5qrpta
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1980&from=rss_home
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Yes, it has been known that a whole lot of oil was in the Arctic, I was not
aware it might be that much. Of course the question on some peoples mind is
do we want to use it investing in new long term oil extraction and
commitments or do we want to move towards cleaner energy solutions instead.
I a
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Heading off to bed, I took a glance at the headlines -- and noticed
this, just in from Devoir:
"Quatre cent douze milliards de barils de pétrole. Le tiers des réserves
prouvées de la planète. Voilà ce que renfermeraient les profondeurs de
l'Arctique, selon la plus
6 matches
Mail list logo
