Known recoverable vs. EROEI positive (was five million tons - not 40

Message
Since when is motive irrelevant to evaluating a person's positions?

This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential and legally privileged information from the law firm of Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP intended only for the use of the individual(s) identified as addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic mail transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me by telephone immediately. Nothing contained herein or in any attachment hereto is intended to be used, or can be used, to avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.

Mark, that's an ad hominem. Either what he is saying
is correct or it isn't, and it doesn't matter whether
he works for energy companies or the Sierra Club or
the Pope.

Ed

>
> However, I notice, still no real name, and no
> comment on the issue of shilling for energy
> companies.
>
> http://mm1.letterma rk.net/calfee/ card/PKDL_ 8.map>
>
> This electronic mail transmission may contain
> confidential and legally privileged information from
> the law firm of Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP
> intended only for the use of the individual(s)
> identified as addressee(s) . If you are not the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of
> any action in reliance on the contents of this
> electronic mail transmission is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this transmission in error,
> please notify me by telephone immediately. Nothing
> contained herein or in any attachment hereto is
> intended to be used, or can be used, to avoid
> penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
>
> [mailto:ssi_list@... s.com] On Behalf Of
> hitssquad
> positive (was five million tons - not 40 trillion)
>
> > embrittlement is the stopper for nuclear
> containment vessels.
>
> Untrue.
>
http://www.google. com/search? q=nuclear+ embrittlement+ annealinghttp://www.google. com/search? q=nuclear+ embrittlement+ annealing>
>
> > hitssquad [...] misquotes his own sources [...]
> the fine CFR
> > article
>
> The CFR article was not my source for uranium
> vastness. Here is
> my source:
>
> > known to be recoverable.
>
> That phrase is not relevant to the topic being
> discussed. Here
> is some theory-based explanation of why:
>
http://www.juliansi mon.com/writings /Articles/ RESOURCE. txthttp://www.juliansi mon.com/writings /Articles/ RESOURCE. txt>
>
http://www.google. com/search? q=site%3Ajulians imon.com+ reserveshttp://www.google. com/search? q=site%3Ajulians imon.com+ reserves>
>
> Are there really only five million "known
> recoverable" tons?
> What happened to the 4.5 billion tons suspended in
> the oceans?
>
> > Check out the article
> >
> > "Celebrate clean coal, come on!"Cheers,
>
> Thanks for the link, Darel.
>

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _