Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Telemarker who wrote (72928)	9/11/2000 9:56:02 AM
From: Terry D	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

O/T TM - Like your opinion on wood vs. oil. In your opinion - which source has greater environmental impact - cradle to grave? I have heard conflicting opinions. My brother in Utah (at the base of Little Cottonwood) won't burn wood because of Salt Lake's smog problem (being a basin city - like Mexico City), but my bro-in-law in Wilson, WY swears by it. Less transportation impact, cuts his own, only uses fallen timber. We just bought a house with a sweet wood burning stove - previous owners said it heats the whole place. It is on the coast in Maine where they heat a lot with wood (not something we did a lot of in Fairfield county). Very breezy - no smog issues. We also have oil heat for hot water and heat. Which is the lesser evil? t d Edit - the San Juans? That has got to be incredible, living there. My wife and I love that range.