Sir John the Apostate wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
The Keeper wrote:
This thread discusses the Content article: Sen. Hatch touts need for oil shale

While drilling for oil shale has widespread support in conservative Utah, Democrats in Colorado and Wyoming are skeptical.

Maybe Colorado and Wyoming are wondering why Hatch and his cronies are talking about strip-mining the west, considering the fact Atlantic Richfield dicovered enough oil under the Arctic in 1977 to totally fuel this country for the next 200 years!


You have proof of that? 200 years? Fact is, if that was true, they'd being drilling there, they already have the pipeline set up, or could extend it pretty easily from Alaska, I'm not buying your claim without a link

heres a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1002_area

Dubbs I think your new name should be "Doubting Thomas"

Personally I think we should go with the Uber Troll.




I see you haven't read the link either, and are as dumb as bigdummy. Typical.

Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
The Keeper wrote:
This thread discusses the Content article: Sen. Hatch touts need for oil shale

While drilling for oil shale has widespread support in conservative Utah, Democrats in Colorado and Wyoming are skeptical.

Maybe Colorado and Wyoming are wondering why Hatch and his cronies are talking about strip-mining the west, considering the fact Atlantic Richfield dicovered enough oil under the Arctic in 1977 to totally fuel this country for the next 200 years!


You have proof of that? 200 years? Fact is, if that was true, they'd being drilling there, they already have the pipeline set up, or could extend it pretty easily from Alaska, I'm not buying your claim without a link

heres a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1002_area

Dubbs I think your new name should be "Doubting Thomas"


Once again you show your lack of research and comprehension skills. Did you read your link? Do you know what I even was questioning... you big tard?

I said I doubt it had 200 years worth of oil in the area, THAT'S what I doubted you idjit.

And guess what? I was right, here's a quote


"The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices"

There's only 4 to 6 billion barels they are projecting from the area, a small amount compared to other areas, even the United States has area's that project 10 times that.

So, who's the idiot? you are bigdummy. Go back to threatening women and children, your better at that.

You big pooh head!!!! Why can't you ever be nice? Even if you’re right, the way you say it, is mean and condescending. Can you go 2 hr, without calling someone a names?

Personally, I think we need to find, other alternatives. I know oil isn’t the only answer. (Unless you are big oil, Bush/Chaney) I’ve been doing research on wind power. Our family traveled through Wyoming last summer, we passed a big windmill farm. I know here in Utah there are farms sprouting up everywhere... It is clean energy, why wouldn’t we use it. Oh, one farm here, the power goes to California, for the next 20 years. Someone is getting smart.

Visiting the Grand Canyon this summer, I was so surprised to see the Smokey haze through out the valley. It was the smoke from a Power plant. Yes I know they burn coal. My point is, use clean energy; let’s get out of the dark ages. Maybe its time to let the big oil company’s go the way of the dinosaurs.

Ha! ha! ha! I made a funny

here a fun side note.

Windmills could make their way into Utah

By: Anne Buccambuso

…According to the American Wind Energy Association, one wind turbine displaces 1,800 tons of carbon dioxide each year, the equivalent of planting a square mile of forest…

Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
The Keeper wrote:
This thread discusses the Content article: Sen. Hatch touts need for oil shale

While drilling for oil shale has widespread support in conservative Utah, Democrats in Colorado and Wyoming are skeptical.

Maybe Colorado and Wyoming are wondering why Hatch and his cronies are talking about strip-mining the west, considering the fact Atlantic Richfield dicovered enough oil under the Arctic in 1977 to totally fuel this country for the next 200 years!


You have proof of that? 200 years? Fact is, if that was true, they'd being drilling there, they already have the pipeline set up, or could extend it pretty easily from Alaska, I'm not buying your claim without a link

heres a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1002_area

Dubbs I think your new name should be "Doubting Thomas"


Once again you show your lack of research and comprehension skills. Did you read your link? Do you know what I even was questioning... you big tard?

First off Dubbs you were asking for a link, I found one and gave it to you,
I was not on either of your side, I just gave a link to help you both out...
I did not care what you were fighting about Dubbs because all you do is fight with people,
It does not matter if you're wrong or right you fight with everyone....

also Dubbs others on here with and without handicapped children have asked you nicely to stop name calling and using the despicable names like "Tard"...
again you have shown you are the one uncouth enough to use names like that so please stop.....

I said I doubt it had 200 years worth of oil in the area, THAT'S what I doubted you idjit.

And guess what? I was right, here's a quote from YOUR link (friggin idiot)


"The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices"

Dubbs did you even read the article..???
Do you know what the ANWR stands for???

It's an Acronym for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge which BTW only covers Eight million acres in northern Alaska a very "very" small part of the Arctic Dubbs and of course this small part of the Arctic would not have a large impact on world oil prices, and you call me an idiot

There's only 4 to 6 billion barels they are projecting from the area, a small amount compared to other areas, even the United States has area's that project 10 times that.

So, who's the idiot? YOU are bigdummy, once again you show you have no comprehension skills, and a lack of basic reading skills.

Dubbs you better read it again because in 1998, the USGS estimated that between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels are in this small area.. maybe you just forgot to add the one when you wrote the six, but I don't think you are that honest, I think you did it on Purpose,

Dubbs you call me names every time that you write a post regarding one of my posts,
but yet I do not call you names,
"LOL" and you call me anti LDS, I'm not even active or do I even believe in the LDS religion anymore and I live the LDS way better then you do Dubbs "LOL"

Go back to threatening women and children, your better at that.

Dubbs you know thats untrue I never did that, but you are very good at repeating this lie... you should remember what your God said about bearing false witness Dubbs