Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

All Techno-Messiah Waiters Please Stand Up

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 15:45:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen your "plan" actually starts reversing trends 1-8, give me a call.


I'm not necessarily positing some magical, happy future. Some of these are extremely serious problems, indeed the ones we should be facing. But not all of them relate to oil crash. My point is that the corporations running the show are going to keep peak oil from crashing everything because the replacement technologies make economic sense. We need to address non-peak problems.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')ude this is all great on paper, but what's happening out in the REAL world?

1. "Generational" oil war in Iraq
2. A worldwide war on terror that will "last our lifetimes" that just so happpens to take place where lots of oil is


Which I oppose and have opposed from the start. While these reflect the fact that oil's peak is imminent, which I agree with, it says nothing about whether the peak means the end of civilization.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '3'). Federal government on it's way to bankruptcy (not directly related to peak oil)


Exactly.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '4'). Slow motion collapse of some of the biggest/most crucial and oil dependent sectors of the US (global) economy: automobile manufacturing and air transport


The air collapse reflects the fact that the big carriers have locked in high employee wages and are delivering poor service at high prices. The upstart carriers who are causing the big carriers to lose money are making plenty of money.

Similar situation in the automotive industry. Again, irrelevant to peak oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '5'). Relentless rise in energy prices.


You mean, over the last year. Analysts suggest that current oil industry actions mean they expect to see $40/barrel oil again, probably because of that big boost in production ina couple of years.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '6'). Relentless rise in demand from Chindia


Demand growth is less this year in those countries than it was last year. Growth rates are slowing down.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '7'). Major loss of topsoil and fresh water (both nonrenewable resources, as in we're not making more of either for all intents and purposes).
8. Catastrophic climate change being acknowledged as a major and imminennt (inside of 10-20 years) threat by everybody with more than three functioning brain cells on duty.


Probably more like 20-50 years. These are our major problems. We need to work on them. We don't need to be wasting time preparing for an oil crash that isn't going to happen.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby MattSavinar » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 15:52:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', 'M')y point is that the corporations running the show are going to keep peak oil from crashing everything


You seriously believe this?
User avatar
MattSavinar
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 15:53:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou see your plan as “saving civilization.” I see it as eating our life support system so we can hobble along for a few more years. What value does delaying the inevitable give us? Why does it make sense for us to eat our life support system that we have ALREADY overstressed beyond replacement rates?

You basically state that Peak Oil shouldn’t kill us… an Environmental Collapse should!


No, my point is simply that peak oil isn't going to crash civilization sometime in the next decade because the numbers don't add up. There are bigger, more important problems that will do it, however, if we don't do anything about them. We need to address those problems instead of wringing our hands about oil.

This is peakoil.com. This site is geared around the idea that an oil crash will more or less be the end of civilization. If it isn't, we should all be over at globalwarming.com, or growingrichandpoorgap.com, or depleting topsoil.com, etc.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 15:56:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')My point is that the corporations running the show are going to keep peak oil from crashing everything.


You seriously believe this?


The numbers here (and in more detail on the other thread) don't lie, and they say:
1. They won't be able to keep raising profits by drilling new wells
2: They will be able to keep raising profits by building coal to oil and/or TD
3. They have the money to build enough plants to cover the gap
4. They have the coal and waste, and the steel for factories, to cover the gap.

It looks pretty simple to me. Tell me which of 1-4 are wrong so we can get into this.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:14:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '9'). Major possiblity that the Saudi royal family will be overthrown, which will result in one of two possibilities: they hit the button on their "Doomsday Plan" (if Posner is to be believed) or a bunch of people who hate America gain control of a significant portion of the world's oil supply. In either case, we get radical price spikes.


Posner is a crank. The probability of this happening is pretty dang low, although it's certainly not zero. Right now we have a "police station" over there. It's wrong, but we'll use it. Additionally, there is not a mass movement to overthrow the saudi regime because everyone is sucking on the teat of big oil. Insignficant democratic reforms were granted only so they could suck up to the US.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '1')0. Possibliity of Iran being invaded by the US, instability in Venezuela, etc . . .


They've got our oil. Fullscale invasion unlikely. Is there a chance we get a price spike to $80 or even $100 next year because of one of these things, and go into global recession for several years. Sure, but this is a far cry from your catastrophe scenarios.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '1')1. Leadership that is, shall we say, "less than inspiring."


No kidding.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen your "plan" actually starts reversing trends 1-11 in a tangible, discnernable, and readily verifiable fashion, I'll start responding to your emails. In the meantime, there is simply not enough time left for those of us who don't want to be completely 100% screwed by these things to waste debating why or why not thermal depolymerization, plug-in hybrids, and Pazoozoo are going to save our butts.


Oh please. Mockery doesn't suggest anything to me except that you don't want to argue with me on real terms, using the best available estimates, about what's going to happen. And that's a shame, because everyone on this board desperately needs a clear picture of what's going to happen.

I feel like I have to make this point again and again, but I've been pretty clear that I'm not a born again optimist that all of society's problems will be fixed tomorrow. I even think there's a good chance supply gets behind demand 5 years from now to the extent there's a global depression lasting 5 or even 10 years. I simply don't think peak oil = the end of civilization.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o while you "plug and play" with your numbers, I'm swinging over to gaim.com to get myself a spinning composter. (Sucker looks ideal for those of us who live in apartments, but I guess that should go in the personal prep sction)

You're a good person and you obviously care about the future of humanity, but you're wasting time, effort, and money preparing for a problem that won't come to pass. You could be working for the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. You could be agitating at the G8 summit for debt relief. You could get a career as an ecologist and figure out methods of agriculture that prevent topsoil loss.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:22:13

In passing, I'll point out the logic problems that pervade most of the arguments on your site, case anyone reading this thread decides to stop over there for the other view:

1. Assuming an enormous price peak is inevitable if supply > demand. Prices won't go to $200 overnight and stay there, because no one will buy at $200. And there is no one who can afford to sit on 85 mbd of unsold oil for more than a few weeks, because there's nowhere to physically put it. Strategic reserves for countries like the US are generally around 600 mb. Price will come back down until all of the oil is being sold.

2. Assuming that any given technology has to replace everything, even though what it really needs to do is replace *some* oil production, for about 20 years.

3. Assuming that we have to replace everything at once, rather than over 10 or 15 years.

4. A failure to acknowledge that there's a $3 trillion global energy sector that is going to foot the bill for this, becaues it is profitable.
Last edited by jtmorgan61 on Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:24:05, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby entropyfails » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:23:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', '
')No, my point is simply that peak oil isn't going to crash civilization sometime in the next decade because the numbers don't add up. There are bigger, more important problems that will do it, however, if we don't do anything about them. We need to address those problems instead of wringing our hands about oil.

This is peakoil.com. This site is geared around the idea that an oil crash will more or less be the end of civilization. If it isn't, we should all be over at globalwarming.com, or growingrichandpoorgap.com, or depleting topsoil.com, etc.


As I said before, you misstate what people around here say about peak oil. We come here to discuss the ramifications of peak oil to industrial society. Some here even feel peak oil will end up forcing us away from oil to alternatives and thus should be welcomed. We have no consensus view of the situation.

And these bigger problems such as global warming and environmental destruction have their roots in oil as well. So we discuss them here as well. If you would like to only discuss a simplistic version of the conversations that happen here, I suggest you make peakoilmeanzyoudoomed.com and you will get exactly the sort of people you want to have a conversation with. Otherwise, stay here but stay respectful.
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby MattSavinar » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:25:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')My point is that the corporations running the show are going to keep peak oil from crashing everything


You seriously believe this?


The numbers here (and in more detail on the other thread) don't lie, and they say:
1. They won't be able to keep raising profits by drilling new wells
2: They will be able to keep raising profits by building coal to oil and/or TD
3. They have the money to build enough plants to cover the gap
4. They have the coal and waste, and the steel for factories, to cover the gap.

It looks pretty simple to me. Tell me which of 1-4 are wrong so we can get into this.


Again, let's look at what steps are already being taken in the real world:

1. Mergers/Downsizing

2. Investment in Iraq, where it only takes a $1 to produce a barrel of oil. It takes $80 to produce one from thermal depolymerization, $32 from coal to oil. With oil prices at $60, that means Iraq oil has a $60 to $1 return on investment. Even with oil at $100, thermal depolymerization would only be $1.25 to $1.00. Coal to oil would be $3 to $1. If the law says you must do what is in the best interest of the corporation, where are you going to put the corporation's money?

3. Invest in prisons and weapon systems. Halliburton, for instance, is an oil services company whose subsidiary KBR is a big player in the prison construction industry.

Matt
Last edited by MattSavinar on Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:35:35, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MattSavinar
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:28:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s I said before, you misstate what people around here say about peak oil. We come here to discuss the ramifications of peak oil to industrial society. Some here even feel peak oil will end up forcing us away from oil to alternatives and thus should be welcomed. We have no consensus view of the situation.


I pretty much feel this way. I think we need another 20 years before we have the technology in place. I'm arguing with those people who think we can't get 20 more years with oil replacements. Secondarily, I'm arguing with people who think there need to be huge preparations for an oil crash right now, rather than continuing the focus of the left-wing community over the last 20 years on things like ending war, preventing environmental degradation and famine, and lowering the class gap.

I felt like your original post construed me as someone saying "business as usual forever, hooray! Everything will be great!" That's not true at all.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Raxozanne » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:31:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', ' ')My point is that the corporations running the show are going to keep peak oil from crashing everything because the replacement technologies make economic sense.


I lot of alternative energy technologies would not have been developed or expanded if the gov. had not provided subsidies to corporations because they didn't make economic sense.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') Analysts suggest that current oil industry actions mean they expect to see $40/barrel oil again, probably because of that big boost in production ina couple of years.


What about constant increase in demand?
What about 32 out of 46 oil producing countries being in decline?
Are you a fan or CERA?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Demand growth is less this year in those countries than it was last year. Growth rates are slowing down.


But it's still going up isn't it?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') We don't need to be wasting time preparing for an oil crash that isn't going to happen.


WTF are you doing here then if you don't think PO will happen?
WHy dont you go shopping in a mall or have a bbq instead of bombarding us with your overoptimistic POV?
Raxozanne
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:35:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')r They skip steps 1-4, invest in Iraqi oil production (where it takes $1 to produce a barrel compared to $80 from thermal depolymerization) and then start investing in weapons systems and prisons.


Yeah, they'll do Iraqi oil right now because it's cheapest. In 2010 or whenever, it won't be the cheapest option and they will do whatever method gives them cheap oil. They will make as much as they can profitably sell.

You think the US demand for weapons systems and prisons is going to reach $750 billion a year on top of what we're already spending, so these companies get all their money from there instead? You think everyone's going to switch production fields midstream and compete with established weapons and prisons manufacturers? You think no one's going to stay in the exact same industry, make a small leap forward in technology that doesn't cost a damaging amount more than current acquisition methods, and keep making gobs of money?

Obviously those scenarios are pretty unreasonable. I think your real thrust here is that the United States has elected a militaristic half-wit who is running the country into the ground. That's true. That's a real problem. It isn't peak oil.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Ghog » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:41:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m arguing with those people who think we can't get 20 more years with oil replacements. Secondarily, I'm arguing with people who think there need to be huge preparations for an oil crash right now, rather than continuing the focus of the left-wing community over the last 20 years on things like ending war, preventing environmental degradation and famine, and lowering the class gap.


Could we get a 'bonus' 20 years with alternatives? Sure, but then again we may not. Much of what you see here is preparation. You say 'huge', but I hardly think of learning sustainable gardening and getting out of debt as 'huge preparations'. The other thing you miss is that many are preparing in part because of a longing for a simpler lifestyle. Getting away from the rat race and becoming more in touch with nature, is certainly not all doom and gloom. Each person is only doing what part they think they can accomplish. 3000 peakoilers can't stop the Iraq war, nor can they solve global warming and famine. What they can do is play their small part, in a much bigger picture, and try and recapture what life is about.
User avatar
Ghog
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon 18 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Pennsylvania
Top

Unread postby threadbear » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:43:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', '(')Stands up)

Matt, you've ignored my email about how you misrepresent thermal depolymerization on your site. We can take it up here if you'd like.

.


Perhaps he was busy making up lapel buttons that say, "just say no to thermal depolymerization" :lol:

Is there an easier way to say thermal deplymerization? Is that energy from turkeyinnards, etc...? Gut gas, perhaps? It would be so much more user friendly.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:43:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', 'M')y point is that the corporations running the show are going to keep peak oil from crashing everything


You seriously believe this?


Yep he does, like this:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o, after 10 years of investment, you expect the U.S. to reach a second, higher peak in oil production. The 1970 peak (of 9.64 mbd) will be substantially exceeded in 2020 (reaching 13mbd). In 2020 the U.S. will be producing oil from coal and trash at a rate faster than Saudi Arabia has ever pumped in its entire history.


Yeah, pretty much. It's just a matter of what resources we have. We have way, way more coal than we had oil. We have an enormous agricultural sector.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Unread postby MattSavinar » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:45:38

I'm sorry, I for some reason have screwed up another post. See post below.
Last edited by MattSavinar on Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:57:20, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MattSavinar
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:45:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') lot of alternative energy technologies would not have been developed or expanded if the gov. had not provided subsidies to corporations because they didn't make economic sense.


Right, and now a couple of them are going to make economic sense when oil is at $80/barrel.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat about constant increase in demand?
What about 32 out of 46 oil producing countries being in decline?
Are you a fan or CERA?


These businesses are trying make as much money as possible. They also have a lot of inside information. If their actions and statements suggest that they are expecting $40/barrel oil, then it seems like a good possibility. If they're wrong, then oil will be at $80 in a couple of years and they won't have found any more conventional oil. Then they will start building coal to oil or TD plants instead, to keep their revenues flowing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '(')Demand is) still going up isn't it?


Demand is going up and supply is going up. They'll always be pretty close because people want to sell everything they pump. That maximizes profits. When demand keeps going up and conventional oil supply doesn't, we would have a problem if other methods for making oil and covering that slowly growing gap weren't economical and scalable.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')TF are you doing here then if you don't think PO will happen?
WHy dont you go shopping in a mall or have a bbq instead of bombarding us with your overoptimistic POV?


I thought it was a problem, I did some research, I concluded it wasn't a problem. I wanted to share my conclusions with people who think it will be a problem. More to the point, I think that there are a lot of activists around here who are working on this problem rather than other problems that I think are real problems. I would prefer they move over to those problems.

This is kind of a bombardment cause I herniated a disc in my back and I can't go anywhere or do anything. TV sucks. Might as well have a good vigorous debate.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:49:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you or anybody else on the left (or right) were truly concerned about these things, you would stop driving/riding in machines powered by the internal combustion engine, turn off your computer, and live on less than $5,000/year, which would still put in the top 15% of the world's population. (See globalrichlist.org).


I'm living on the low impact end of the scale. Live close to work, no heat or A/C, eat vegetarian, would ride my bike to work if I didn't have a back injury. You can't live on $5000/year in the U.S. You know that.

I also think that a social, well-regulated (as opposed to today) global market economy is the way to get everyone out of poverty. Socialism was a disaster.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby MattSavinar » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:55:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', ' ')My point is that the corporations running the show are going to keep peak oil from crashing everything because the replacement technologies make economic sense.


I lot of alternative energy technologies would not have been developed or expanded if the gov. had not provided subsidies to corporations because they didn't make economic sense.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') Analysts suggest that current oil industry actions mean they expect to see $40/barrel oil again, probably because of that big boost in production ina couple of years.


What about constant increase in demand?
What about 32 out of 46 oil producing countries being in decline?
Are you a fan or CERA?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Demand growth is less this year in those countries than it was last year. Growth rates are slowing down.


But it's still going up isn't it?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') We don't need to be wasting time preparing for an oil crash that isn't going to happen.


Then why are you wasting your time here? Even if each of your 101 posts only took a minute to compose, not accounting for the time it took you to log on, read the messages/news stories on the board, etc. .. you've wasted over an hour and a half debating people about something you think is never going to happen.

If you were really concerned about "ending war" wouldn't you be out finding ways to eliminate your dependence on the resources (financial capital, energy, raw materials) the wars are being fought over, not debating those of us who, by preparing for something that "isn't going to happen", are probably doing more to "end war" than anybody else?

As far as shortening the gap between rich and poor: simply lower your income to less than $1,000/year. With an income of $1,000/year, you would still be in the top 45% of the global population. See GlobalRichList.org What's the saying, "Be the change you wish to make."

Matt
Global Rich List
User avatar
MattSavinar
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 16:59:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ep he does, like this:

So, after 10 years of investment, you expect the U.S. to reach a second, higher peak in oil production. The 1970 peak (of 9.64 mbd) will be substantially exceeded in 2020 (reaching 13mbd). In 2020 the U.S. will be producing oil from coal and trash at a rate faster than Saudi Arabia has ever pumped in its entire history.

Yeah, pretty much. It's just a matter of what resources we have. We have way, way more coal than we had oil. We have an enormous agricultural sector.


And I put that in the context of our current $750 billion/yr energy economy, and asked again for someone to tell me why we couldn't reach that scale over 10 years when the number seem to suggest we can and will. And no one has told me why not, using actual numbers. They've simply said "I can't imagine that."

Take an average person in 1990 and try to persuade him what the internet will look like in 2005 and he'd probably tell you the same thing: absolutely impossible.

850 million people online right now, from a very small base in 1990.

"Let's see, computers are about $2000 each, that's 1.6 TRILLION dollars if no one ever upgrades. Who is going to pay for that? Not to mention infrastructure, engineers, raw materials to build 850 million computers... you're insane."

Profit motives are quite powerful, folks.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 17:02:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')TF are you doing here then if you don't think PO will happen?
WHy dont you go shopping in a mall or have a bbq instead of bombarding us with your overoptimistic POV?


I thought it was a problem, I did some research, I concluded it wasn't a problem....This is kind of a bombardment cause I herniated a disc in my back and I can't go anywhere or do anything. TV sucks. Might as well have a good vigorous debate.


Let's go home. We all came here for nothing. :( (sigh)

You were bored, so you decided to go play troll on peakoil.com. That's rich! :lol:

Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sat 30 Jul 2005, 17:04:55, edited 3 times in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron