Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: null and void

There seems to be confusion here. The EIA get their information from the USGS.

The news reports of a couple months ago use the lower figure. I did see the higher figure on the EIA report as you said.

Here are the latest USGS figures I have read:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

I believe that the larger number may be the USGS number enlarged by a factor of 10.

Hope I’m Wrong.


27 posted on 09/21/2008 5:13:50 PM PDT by TFMcGuire (Either you are an American, or you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: TFMcGuire
There seems to be confusion here.

Well, I'm confused!

I believe that the larger number may be the USGS number enlarged by a factor of 10.

Hope I’m Wrong.

Even if you aren't it's still a pretty respectable amount of oil.

30 posted on 09/21/2008 5:27:30 PM PDT by null and void (0bama: Why are you in the PUMA cage? Biden: I'm not in the PUMA cage, you are. 0bama; AAHH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson