Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Have We Been Wrong?

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

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby TigPil » Mon 08 Jan 2007, 15:06:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')ou seem to have great faith in governments reacting to the problem in a timely manner.


In 2000 in the UK when the rising price of petrol caused some strikes to blockade the flow of goods, the rationing for bread, milk and sugar was briefly imposed. Governments are capable of making short term responsive decisions quickly, it's the long term policy that is a far more questionable issue, obviously including continued energy dependence.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') don't think it can be assumed that the impact will be minimal in the first few years. It is quite possible that the first few years will see the highest impact.


As others pointed out, the first few years will be absorbed by elasticity in other types of demand. Conservation being one factor and demand destruction in totally unessential areas being another. In fact the first few years will have a minimal impact on all of the developed world because the rise in prices will first price out consumers in the developing world. The 4% of year decline won't really be evenly distributed at first as different countries will have different sensitivies to price increases and therefore different rates of demand destruction. The most difficult perdiod will come after several years of such declines when conservation efforts are exhausted and the demand destruction in certain industries begins to feed into rising unemployment.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'T')igPil, how will the government fund its intervention in the food production and distribution system?


The governments won't accomplish this through money but through control of the refineries and effectively gasoline rationing. Just mandate all the refiners to produce less gasoline but leave diesel and petroleum distillates (which are the pesticide feedstock) untouched. There are relatively few refineries in the country run by a handful of companies so that will be the easiest point of government intervention. The end result will of course be gasoline shortages and rationing at the pumps. In the long run government financing may become a problem as unemployment picks up after demand destruction in certain sectors of the economy. But predicting the reactions in the financial markets is harder than real economic activities. There will undoubtedly be inflation and rising unemployement. Will this lead to a collapse of the dollar? Will there be a run on the banks? Will the government be able to borrow money domestically or internationally? Will there be a national debt default? Will they have to resort to printing money? The answers to these questions depend on far too many factors beyond declining energy supplies and the economic contraction caused by them. It would take a very significant economic collapse (more significant than the Great Depression) to cause a fiduciary crisis in the dollar.
User avatar
TigPil
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue 02 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby SchroedingersCat » Mon 08 Jan 2007, 16:34:03

You can't count on a government to do what is required.

Zimbabwe, the land of dying children

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') vast human cull is under way in Zimbabwe and the great majority of deaths are a direct result of deliberate government policies.
...
Under Maguta, the army descends on villagers to compel them to grow maize and sorghum, which they must then sell to the army-run Grain Marketing Board.
Civilization is a personal choice.
SchroedingersCat
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu 26 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The ragged edge
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Mon 08 Jan 2007, 17:07:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')ou seem to have great faith in governments reacting to the problem in a timely manner.

In 2000 in the UK when the rising price of petrol caused some strikes to blockade the flow of goods, the rationing for bread, milk and sugar was briefly imposed. Governments are capable of making short term responsive decisions quickly, it's the long term policy that is a far more questionable issue, obviously including continued energy dependence.
I must admit that I don't recall such government imposed rationing (though I was living in the UK then); wasn't that voluntarily done by some supermarkets? That period also showed that people were desperate to keep driving but you're talking about a situation that got bad very quickly, due to blockade, and was potentially life threatening to a great many people, very early on. As I said, you have great faith that governments will act quickly and appropriately in a situation where there is still a free market in oil and fuel, and when there will not be an obvious distinct threat for some time but a build up in the early years of potentially threatening actions (for example, farmers cutting back on fertilizers and pesticides, or deciding there is no profit in farming).

You've obviously thought about this a lot and have now formed a definite view as to how the future will unfold. Unfortunately, no-one can foretell the future. So you may be right but you can also be wrong.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby TigPil » Mon 08 Jan 2007, 20:07:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SchroedingersCat', 'Y')ou can't count on a government to do what is required.


Yeah ok, I don't really count Robert Mugabe's tyranny as an acceptable form of government either. I'm sure not every government will react appropriately to crisis but most developed world governments have reasonable track records for dealing with resource shortages.

During WW II, the US had rationing imposed on an ever greater variety of goods (as did the other major participants in the war). Rubber was the first rationed item, followed by food rations and gasoline rations. Gasoline rationing lasted from 1942 to 1945. Non-essential motorists were limited to 3 gallons per week. Rationing of some other productes lasted until 1946. Food was rationed by type with specific limitations on meat consumption and dairy items but also non-essential food items, like sugar and coffee.

From 1974-1976, the US again imposed a gasoline rationing system. Drivers could only purchase gasoline on odd or even numbered days, depending on their licence plate numbers. This was not as strict as WWII rationing but still helped reduce consumption.

I cite these as examples of reactive government action in times of national crisis. In both cases the economy suffers but the rationing helps achieve an equitable distribution of goods. It seems likely that some level of rationing will have to be enforced in the aftermath of peak oil. Most developed world governments were able to introduce rationing systems at various points during the 20th century. I don't see why peak oil would be significantly different in the first few years. How long rationing will last and how low the economy will descend during that time will depend on how rapidly an alternate energy infrastructure can be put in place to replace the fossil fuel consumption.
User avatar
TigPil
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue 02 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Mon 08 Jan 2007, 20:19:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', 'I') don't see why peak oil would be significantly different in the first few years.
You've been using wars and embargos/blockades as examples of effective government action. Peak oil probably won't be like any of those examples. Heck, no-one is likely to even admit that peak oil is the cause for a few years. It'll be just a normal market downturn and some temporary constraints on supply. When you have 84 mbpd swilling around, governments are unlikely to act but the economy will suffer and prices will start to climb. When it's 83 mbpd, they might start to become a little uneasy, but the extra Saudi capacity will be just around the corner, so no need to act hastily.

No, I don't think timely, appropriate and effect government action, in today's society, when oil peaks, is at all guaranteed, though no doubt there will be some early actions (probably to try to bring the fuel price down) and some more panic-driven later actions.

We just don't know. Worst case is probably unlikely, best case is probably unlikely, but both are possible. I think you support a best case scenario.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby SchroedingersCat » Mon 08 Jan 2007, 20:45:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', 'I')'m sure not every government will react appropriately to crisis but most developed world governments have reasonable track records for dealing with resource shortages.


They generally invade countries that have what they need. WW II comes to mind, as does Iraq. Also, a crisis implies a temporary problem. Peak oil is not temporary.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')uring WW II, the US had rationing imposed on an ever greater variety of goods (as did the other major participants in the war).


People were willing to sacrifice in the short term for the long term reward of peace. Also, coming out of the depression most people were used to getting by with less.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow long rationing will last and how low the economy will descend during that time will depend on how rapidly an alternate energy infrastructure can be put in place to replace the fossil fuel consumption.


Alternative energy solutions cannot replace fossil fuels to any large degree. Fossil fuels simply contain too much stored energy and the EROEI of alternatives will never measure up. The btu's in 28 gallons of gasoline are roughly the same as a human's calorie requirements for an entire year.
Civilization is a personal choice.
SchroedingersCat
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu 26 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The ragged edge
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby TigPil » Mon 08 Jan 2007, 20:45:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', ' ')I think you support a best case scenario.


No, a best case scenario is one where a combination of conservation, rationing and aggressive infrastructural investments offset the decline in annual oil supply. A global recession would still happen but the decline would be relatively shallow as alternate energy infrastructure comes online. The standards of living of the developed world are largely unaffected in this scenario.

You seem to be pushing for a worst case scenario. Peak oil comes upon governments completely unaware and anarchy ensues throughout the developed world. With the collapse of government and no fiduciary authority behind currencies, economies collapse completely since there is no trusted medium of exchange. Unemployement spikes to 100% virtually overnight. Global blackouts strike as energy supplies are interrupted dur to damaged transportation systems. Armed gangs of looters take whatever resources are useful by force. Collapse of food production and distribution leads to mass cannibalism throughout the densely populated cities. Basically a Mad Max scenario.

I don't think developed world governments collapse (parts of the developing world may be a different story). Policies may be more or less timely and more or less effective but I don't see governments collapsing (if they do so at all) until very late into a crisis. There are simply no historical precedents for such a precipitous collapse and despite the unprecedented nature of peak oil, we do know the decline in oil output will happen gradually over a couple of decades.
User avatar
TigPil
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue 02 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Mon 08 Jan 2007, 21:23:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', ' ')I think you support a best case scenario.
No, a best case scenario is one where a combination of conservation, rationing and aggressive infrastructural investments offset the decline in annual oil supply.
I meant a best case scenario, given that fossil fuels will peak and then decline. You support a bet case scenario, in that situation.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', 'Y')ou seem to be pushing for a worst case scenario.
I'm not pushing for any scenario; I'm saying that no-one can tell what the future holds but the effects of peak, worldwide, could be calamitous. To plan for any type of outcome is open to potential problems. Planning for the best case scenario is definitely a fingers crossed situation, though.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', 'T')here are simply no historical precedents for such a precipitous collapse and despite the unprecedented nature of peak oil, we do know the decline in oil output will happen gradually over a couple of decades.
No we don't know that. Only if societies hold together, worldwide, will that have a possibility of happening. There may be no historical precedent for a precipitous collapse but there is also no historical precedent for what we are about to experience. We've never had a true global economy before, we've never been so dependent on a soon to peak resource before, without finding a better alternative. We've never had such a complex society before. We've never overshot the carrying capacity of the planet before. We've never had to also deal with so many environmental problems at the same time. So historical precedents can't be used in this situation, since there are none, only precedents for some aspects of the coming crisis/crises.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby TigPil » Mon 08 Jan 2007, 21:45:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', ' ')I think you support a best case scenario.
No, a best case scenario is one where a combination of conservation, rationing and aggressive infrastructural investments offset the decline in annual oil supply.
I meant a best case scenario, given that fossil fuels will peak and then decline. You support a bet case scenario, in that situation.


Sorry, I realize that I did not make myself clear in the initial response. I don't mean that the depletion of fossil fuels is forestalled but the best case scenario is that the rate of depletion is offset by conservation, rationining and aggressive infrastructural investments in other forms of energy production. So if energy derived from fossil fuels drops by 4% per year and conservation measures mitigate 1% per year and new energy infrastructure mitigates 3% then you have no net loss on an annual basis. That would be the best case scenario, which I myself don't believe is possible. There will be some rate of net loss on an annual basis lasting for a significant amount of time before we reach a new equilibrium and that equilibrium will be lower than what could be achieved with fossil fuels.

As for your more general point, sure no one can tell the future. The earth could get hit by a giant meteor before peak oil happends or a nuclear war could erupt between India and Pakistan, etc... There are many possible scenarios with varying likelihoods. My goal was to come up with a relatively reasonable scenario based on what we do know and the likely impacts in different parts of the world. On that basis I feel that using other national emergencies for developed countries is a valid assumption for short term government response (separate from predicting the long term success of such a policy). And like I said from the outset things will be much worse for the developing world. When you lump in talk of "overshooting carrying capacity", you comingle both the governments of developed and developing nations, which are kept separate in my argument. Since I agree that developing nations are particularly stretched thin and have overshot their carrying capacities, I also agree that they are most at risk with respect to social unrest and government collapse.
User avatar
TigPil
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue 02 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 08 Jan 2007, 22:12:59

I've not seen much evidence that the (US, anyway) guvmint is capable of appropriately handling a crisis or long-term disaster.

I'm just not able to whip up any confidence in the scenario, personally.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Mon 08 Jan 2007, 22:13:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', 'S')ince I agree that developing nations are particularly stretched thin and have overshot their carrying capacities
Do you not think that is possible in the US? I don't know what the estimated earth resources footprint for the US is currently but this article states that corn consumption for ethanol will be 79 million tons higher than original estimates. As the US exports only 55 million tons (a quarter of world exports), if the article is right, the US will have a shortfall of corn for food, this year. With corn based ethanol being of dubious energy value, it's possible that this could both increase fuel consumption and decrease available food.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby TigPil » Tue 09 Jan 2007, 01:46:04

I think the ethanol or any type of biomass fuel production is highly misguided. It's currently growing due to high fuel prices and various subsidies and we'll have to see how many ethanol plants come into production. It will definitely have a large impact on the price of corn and probably an even larger impact on the price of meat and dairy products, since half of the corn produces in the US is used as animal feed. I feel sorry for all the people investing in the ethanol facilities because it is an alternate fuel with a very limited future. The land use, water requirements and energy inputs for planting and harvesting will never make it a reasonable fuel in the US, even if a switch is made from corn to something like switchgrass.

The current administration does have a very spotty record for dealing with national disasters but the longer term track record for the US government isn't so bad. I would rather be living in some part of Europe where the dependence on fossil fuels is lower and the adoption of renewable energy is further advanced but I will probably still be in the US when peak oil comes. I'm not ruling out the possibility that the government has policy failures on a regional or even national level (another historic example is the Great Depression, which was probably exacerbated by some of the policies between 1929 and 1933).

But I would still rather be a in a relatively sparsely populated developed nation rather than a densely populated developing one. If the US does go through with those ethanol production plans, the domestic food supply will be minimally impacted but US exports would disappear (see here). If US production isn't replaced from somewhere else then you can see some areas will start starving in 4-5 years, or possibly before that due to escalating prices for grains.
User avatar
TigPil
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue 02 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby gego » Tue 09 Jan 2007, 02:31:41

This thread is getting far away from the original point.

Posters seem to have solved the gross production problem with dreams of government intervention, conservation (which is really part of the effect, not a solution) and low EROEI substitutes.

I don't think the point of the thread is well understood.

From Carlos Mencia, Dee-Dee-Dee.
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby Doly » Tue 09 Jan 2007, 06:15:51

I doubt EROEI is as low as 1:3, but I don't have any better data, so I won't comment on that.

The only thing that can be done about falling EROEI is coal-to-liquids... assuming they have higher EROEI (doubtful). And that is still a bad idea, because of global warming.

So I agree, there's nothing saving us of low EROEI. A small amount of sustainable biofuels is still possible, but the kind of car-crazy society we've had so far is flat-out impossible.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby gego » Tue 09 Jan 2007, 11:19:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'I') doubt EROEI is as low as 1:3, but I don't have any better data, so I won't comment on that.

The only thing that can be done about falling EROEI is coal-to-liquids... assuming they have higher EROEI (doubtful). And that is still a bad idea, because of global warming.

So I agree, there's nothing saving us of low EROEI. A small amount of sustainable biofuels is still possible, but the kind of car-crazy society we've had so far is flat-out impossible.


Based on the little information available, we currently overall for oil are at 6:1. Coal to liquids is between 3:1 and 2:1. Biofuels are lower, maybe only 1+:1 or worse.

If the real killer is the gradually increasing cost of getting oil, then switching from oil to coal liquids or grown liquids like ethanol and biofuel, we are immediately jumping from the frying pan into the fire by substituting low EROEI liquids for the current higher EROEI oil.

I think people have a tendency to think that if we have one gallon of petroleum derived diesel and one gallon of biodiesel that we have the same amount of energy to use. It is easily forgotten that to get that gallon of ordinary diesel we had to spend substantially less energy than for the biodiesel, so they are not even close to equal.

And I still want to know how we are going to mine and deliver coal, or grow and process energy crops without sufficient oil to fuel the process.

Any of the proposed solutions that I have seen are like trying to find quarters under the sofa cushions as a substitute for withdrawals from our once large savings account.
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby Revi » Tue 09 Jan 2007, 12:03:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', '
')Based on the little information available, we currently overall for oil are at 6:1. Coal to liquids is between 3:1 and 2:1. Biofuels are lower, maybe only 1+:1 or worse.

If the real killer is the gradually increasing cost of getting oil, then switching from oil to coal liquids or grown liquids like ethanol and biofuel, we are immediately jumping from the frying pan into the fire by substituting low EROEI liquids for the current higher EROEI oil.

I think people have a tendency to think that if we have one gallon of petroleum derived diesel and one gallon of biodiesel that we have the same amount of energy to use. It is easily forgotten that to get that gallon of ordinary diesel we had to spend substantially less energy than for the biodiesel, so they are not even close to equal.

And I still want to know how we are going to mine and deliver coal, or grow and process energy crops without sufficient oil to fuel the process.

Any of the proposed solutions that I have seen are like trying to find quarters under the sofa cushions as a substitute for withdrawals from our once large savings account.


Great summation of our quandary. It is very similar to scrounging for quarters to keep the car running. We are going to be walking soon!
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine
Top

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 09 Jan 2007, 23:44:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shady28', ' ')*None* of these human and market factors are ever throw into the analysis by these doomsayers. The most I ever see from them is a sideways remark about how the decline will run over human ingenuity, conservation, and market forces acting on each other to adjust. So far, these doomsayers have been wrong, and I expect they will continue to be wrong for quite a while longer.


None? I guess you haven't read anything ofwhat I have posted in here over the last two years. All I ever do is look a the Big Picture and consider all the factors I can possibly think of.

My biggest observation of your critique is that you fail to look at the subsidized $2/day by cheap, readily available fossil fuels.

Look at the items made by oil that they use. It matters not if they get them from the "dump", they are still made with oil.

And to even say that energy does not equal food is pure nonsense.

Demand destruction or conservation and capitalism do not mix.

They are like water and oil.

The economies of the world employ millions with "wasteful" consumption.

We impose a self-induced recession?

Does your job go?
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

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 09 Jan 2007, 23:55:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JPL', ' ')The reason why it WILL be done is simple - we have 6 billion people to feed. It won't be done overnight, but it will be done - there is simply no choice - we all have to eat ;o)

JPL


But 6 billion isn't sustainable, even if you have enough food.

Carrying capacity isn't about feeding people, it is about the ability of the ecosystem to support a given population over time.

All the leading pherology studies say the earth cannot support such numbers on a sustainable basis.
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

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 10 Jan 2007, 00:05:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', ' ')Lets say oil supplies to North America drop at a rate of 5% per year and alternate energy production (nuclear, coal, renewables) only replaces 1% because we have failed to make timely investments in infrastructure (as is the case right now). This means that we have a net 4% drop in oil derived energy per year.


What about the energy required for growth? To service the debt, creare new jobs, etc?

5% decline in oil plus a loss of 3% growth equals 8% net drop.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat will be the impact of a 4% annual drop in oil supplies year by year? Well the first few years probably will have relatively minimal impact. Gasoline prices will rise and consumers will cut back their transportation.


Cut back their transportation? Who absorbs this loss of economic activity? 1 in 6 jobs are tied to auto use.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o at a 4% annual drop rate in oil supplies, it will take 23 years from the onset of peak oil until the prioritized area of food production is affected.


A 5% annual decline in oil production means total oil production will be halved in 14 years. 50% gone.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n those 23 years, a lot of adjustments can take place.


Adjustments take "energy" to achieve.
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

Re: Have We Been Wrong?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 10 Jan 2007, 00:11:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TigPil', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', ' ')I think you support a best case scenario.


No, a best case scenario is one where a combination of conservation, rationing and aggressive infrastructural investments offset the decline in annual oil supply. A global recession would still happen but the decline would be relatively shallow as alternate energy infrastructure comes online.


And where will the spare energy come from to bring these alternatives on-line? Look at the net energy payback period. For decades, newly developed alternatives energy sources will be new consumers, not producers.
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 3 guests



cron