Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

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

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 12:48:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'I')n 1990 Americans seemed happy enough with their 1990 living standards. And that is assuming less and less every year would mean reversion back to previous living standards, which it does not. A world with less oil means fewer and fewer vacations to Australia, smaller and smaller cars, but all the fancy electronics we can stand. Seriously, unless the drop is severe every year I doubt people will notice outside of an academic sense.


A 5% shortfall in the 1970's led to a tripling of gas prices and double digit inflation.

Currently, existing fields are showing a 4 to 5% decline rate with some like Cantarell, 16%, North Slope 11%, and double digits for the North sea. The trend is towards 8%.

Once the yearly decline ensues, you then add in the roughly 2% growth in demand and you get 6 to 10% decline/year.

We don't know what the decline rate will be and we have no Plan B for any decline rate.

Meanwhile, the world's population grows at 1.2%/year and the per capita demand for energy rises as China moves 300 million to middle class each year with India following suit.
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: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby LoneSnark » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 13:07:17

Yes it did. And a quadruppling of gas prices resulted in a 22% drop in U.S. oil consumption over a five year period.

Oil prices have again quadrupled over the past two years. Let us wait and see if the effects upon consumption will be similar to last time. They might not, but we should know in a few years time.

For all we know the world can handle a 5% decline rate. I suspect it can because a vast amount of the oil is used performing tasks which can easily be done other ways; just a few of my favorites:
- Airlifting plasma TVs from Asia when a cargo ship can move them for 1/100th the oil
- Airlifting fruit and vegetables around the world when hydroponics technology is already in use in Canada and Europe
- Cross country trucking when existing rail networks can be (and are being) easily expanded to carry the loads

The statistics are there: thanks to high oil prices, air-freight and trucking companies are losing money and the U.S. railroad network has become rediculously profitable. The railroad companies have invested $10 billion expanding capacity since 2000 and are planning to invest another $12 billion, all of it their own money.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120179835382432337.html
User avatar
LoneSnark
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 13:21:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'Y')es it did. And a quadruppling of gas prices resulted in a 22% drop in U.S. oil consumption over a five year period.


Mostly from industry. Gasoline use actually increased.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')il prices have again quadrupled over the past two years. Let us wait and see if the effects upon consumption will be similar to last time. They might not, but we should know in a few years time.


Demand is going to increase due to China and India's inertia. We are more dependent upon the auto than ever. We are in the beginning stages of stagflation. Rising prices with little growth.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or all we know the world can handle a 5% decline rate.


We don't know what the decline rate will be. 5% may be dreaming.

At a 5% decline rate, 50% of the oil production will be gone in 14 years.

We can handle a drop from 85 mbpd to 42.5 mbpd over 14 years while the population grows 1.2% and the demand for energy doubles as projected?
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: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby davep » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 14:16:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')So therefore, if we don't appropriate further solar energy, the net effect relative to current usage is zero (or negative if we get our act together).


But we are appropriating more via biofuels. "Waste" is some other lifeform's food.


If you read David Blume's book "Alcohol Can Be A Gas!", you can see how ethanol production can be placed into a holistic permaculture design whilst improving soil and biodiversity relative to what farmers are doing now. It won't replace our current consumption, nor is it designed to.
By misappropriating a rather romantic and unproven technology (permaculture) Blume is unknowingly (or not) scamming the credulous public for book sales. While industrial ethanol (the most efficient kind) is at best slightly useful, home scale alcohol production would be a complete waste of time. It would make more sense to feed the corn to pigs and ride them to the commune house.


Blume has practiced permaculture for a long time. You're good at smearing things you haven't read and know nothing about. Whereas Blume has spent decades in the fields of both permaculture and ethanol production. I wonder who has the more merit? The practitioner or the naysayer who hasn't even bothered reading what he's criticising?I have studied permaculture as long as he has. I have an advanced degree in sustainable agriculture so you are blowing smoke out your ass.

So have yo read it or not? How can you make such claims about Blume usurping permaculture for some nefarious shennanigans if you haven't? On what basis do you make these claims?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here are so many areas where we have inefficiently used land mass (or even recently desertified areas) that the scale required to harness solar would not need to take away from natural systems using it.

How could it not? There is no "extra" solar.

There is no "extra" wind. Harness the energy from the wind and what happens to the systems that energy once supplied? The seeds of many plants ride the wind.

You don' t seem to grasp the scale here.

Stop this idiocy. I understand the need to examine the potential problems with any technology, but we have created deserts where once there were forests. These areas can be utilised for producing biomass that both increases biodiversity and allow us to harness the byproducts. There could be a net increase in biodiversity if it isn't planned as an industrial exploitation. As for wind, I don't think windmills thirty metres up will affect seeds (far less so than trees etc). However, there could be a risk to birds. Just stop being so strident and try to discuss the dangers realistically.This is more agricultural and thermodynamic voodoo. How can you expect places we have already reduced with our abuse to expand our industry? Sheer madness.

Voodoo? We were discussing a specific potential risk brought up by Monte. Seed dispersal would be far more disrupted by lower-lying elements such as trees than windmill poles. That's why windmills should be much higher than other elements of the terrain, due to their adverse effect on the wind. Get a grip with the rhetoric...You changed the discussion from solar, to wind, and back to biomass without regard for debate convention or practical constructive adult thinking.

You get mad that people accuse you of voodoo? Well Davep your thinking is magical and I don't mean in a positive sense. You argue like a 10-year old punk and make no points. It has always been a waste of time discussing serious issues with you because you do not listen or learn. What a punk.

Who's getting mad? You're acting a bit odd here. The above was regarding a specific potential risk. I thought it wasn't really a risk, and you start ranting about voodoo. Who's the one using odd debating techniques?
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby davep » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 14:26:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')As I've mentioned elsewhere, the vast majority of corn produced in the US goes to feed cattle. It's wasteful. We need to be looking at orders of magnitude better use of resources.


Of course. But we aren't. In fact the demand for meat from grain is on the rise in the developing countries. That is not going to change by design anytime soon. That is reality, cultural direction and asset inertia.


Fine, but let's not conflate cultural direction and asset inertia with overshoot. These things are separate, and can be worked on.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is not a consensus, it's a median value of various studies over three decades.


This study shows a median value of 2 to 5 billion.


i.e. not a consensus

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he medians of the low and high estimates provide a range from 2.1 to 5.0 billion people. With the current Earth population estimated to be 6.1 billion people,24 the median range of sustainable carrying capacity estimates suggests that the Earth's population be reduced in order to be sustainable.

Using energy as a measure, 1 to 3 billion:

You know full well what I think about using energy as an indicator. We're living with the cheapest energy in the history of man. Therefore we use it wantonly (historically speaking), and its use is inefficient, or to be more precise the processes we use that harness that energy are inefficient in energy terms. Our processes will become more efficient in energy terms as energy gets scarcer, and if this isn't taken into account, then the results are bunkum.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')sing standards of living lower than the current North American average, estimates of carrying capacity using energy as a metric range from 1 to 3 billion people. This is less than half of the current global population.

http://www.ilea.org/leaf/richard2002.html

The consensus of 17 leading experts is 2 to 3 billion, I cite here:

http://eco.gn.apc.org/pubs/smail.html

OK, I'll check that out later, I've got to go and cut some wood before it gets too dark.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') do love the way you contradict yourself in two succeeding paragraphs. To summarise, first off "I do look at alternatives" then "there are no alternatives".

No contradiction at all. We need to look to sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels, but there are no alternatives to fossil fuels that will support a population in severe overshoot on a sustainable basis.

We need to develop alternatives within sustainable parameters, not to try and meet the energy demands of a population in severe overshoot. That's just not possible on a sustainable basis.

Back to your old standby, that it's proven we're in overshoot. You know I disagree with this, yet you insist on trotting it out as a truth. Yawn.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o it is. However, I wasn't talking about them. I discuss potential solutions. We know that we're going to be faced with an end to the age of easy energy. Chindia will grind to a halt in its present form. We'll power-down whether we like it or not. So, when we discuss future scenarios, please don't add caveats about things being impossible if we try to sustain our current lifestyles. We all know that. The question is whether we can do it or not, not whether we can sustain our current gluttony.

You cannot talk about our energy future and not talk about China and India.

We aren't abandoning our current gluttony, nor do we have any plans to do so in the near future. China is not building a future beyond oil, they are building a future upon oil.

Yes, we are going to hit a wall of reality, but not before we pull out all stops to sustain our current lifestyles. China has had a taste of the American way of consumption. They are not going back.

We will be at war before we powerdown. Iraq is but the first volley.

And even if we powerdown, we still have a severe population overshoot that cannot be sustained with alternative means.

We are in overshoot. The scale is just too big.

Frankly, the whole Chindia thing is irrelevant. Let's prove what can be done, rather than get caught up in the headlights of inevitability.

And stop saying we're in overshoot. I don't agree and nor do a lot of people. Catton is not a God, and his use of energy as an indicator is flawed (rather than the use of the products of the work of that energy, i.e. Liebig's Law essentials).
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby BigTex » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 14:34:21

MQ, sorry to interrupt the dung throwing, but what is the solution to the dilemma of needing to modernize third world societies in order to get the birth rate under control while modernization tends to increase energy consumption exponentially?

It seems like you're screwed either way.

Are there any examples of low birth rate and low energy consumption societies today that might be a model?
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 18:01:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'S')eriously, unless the drop is severe every year I doubt people will notice outside of an academic sense.
Your reasoning seems to go like this:

Oil production decreased 5% (or whatever it will be) last year and all we had to do was accommodate an extra couple percent unemployed and take less trips. Therefore, we can do that indefinitely and will never notice much of a difference in overall lifestyles. Same thing for natural gas decline and coal decline.

Do you really not see any flaw in that reasoning? Would society really not notice a 40% unemployment rate, almost no long trips and little global trade, just because the decline was gradual over a couple of decades?
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby LoneSnark » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 19:04:47

No, that was not my position. I see no evidence to suggest current unemployment is a result of high oil prices. More likely, it is a result of trouble in the banking sector and the usual business cycle.

And what coal decline? Coal is primarily located in capitalist countries, the only current limitation to production is the requisite investment in men and machines.

That said, it has been argued on this board that 5% is overly optimistic on your part. The larger the region the slower it declines. The north slope may be declining at 14% a year, but the U.S. as a whole is declining only 1%.
User avatar
LoneSnark
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 19:35:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'N')o, that was not my position. I see no evidence to suggest current unemployment is a result of high oil prices. More likely, it is a result of trouble in the banking sector and the usual business cycle.

And what coal decline? Coal is primarily located in capitalist countries, the only current limitation to production is the requisite investment in men and machines.

That said, it has been argued on this board that 5% is overly optimistic on your part. The larger the region the slower it declines. The north slope may be declining at 14% a year, but the U.S. as a whole is declining only 1%.
I think you missed my points entirely. If you don't think employment will be much affected by declines in fossil fuels, then would you care to explain why?

If oil declines only at 1%, then your rosy optimism may be valid for longer than a few years, but eventually, the absolute declines will have an effect that can't be ignored, so my point still stands (though many think global decline will be more rapid than 1%).

Coal declines have been discussed elsewhere but I see that you also have a rosy optimism where that is concerned.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby davep » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 19:50:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shannymara', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'B')ack to your old standby, that it's proven we're in overshoot. You know I disagree with this, yet you insist on trotting it out as a truth.

Don't you think the acidification of the oceans, gigantic gyre of plastic in the Pacific, global collapse in fish stocks, extinction rates at least an order of magnitude above background level, toxins accumulating in the fat of mammals all over the planet, deforestation, destruction of topsoil, our significant alteration of atmospheric chemistry, etc. all together are pretty good evidence we are in overshoot? Your argument that there's no "proof" we are in overshoot reminds me of the tobacco and chemical industries fomenting doubt their products cause cancer. There will be no proof that will satisfy you we are in overshoot until the dieoff occurs.

In any case, this topic is about scale, so we should try to keep the discussion related to scale.


Poisoning the planet is not equivalent to being in overshoot. We could have a population of 1 billion and still make this mess. Granted, some elements reduce carrying capacity, but the essential point is that the fact we're poisoning the place is more to do with living in a corrupt profit-driven society. I think this will change out of necessity over the next couple of generations.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby davep » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 20:09:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'S')o have yo read it or not? How can you make such claims about Blume usurping permaculture for some nefarious shennanigans if you haven't? On what basis do you make these claims?
Why would I read Blume. You and he obviously do not understand what permaculture is, and where the discipline fits into a post-peak post-industrial system? I will explain. Permaculture is a fancy (and somewhat precious name) for backyard gardening. It is not going to power our industrial lifestyle. Permaculture represents the very antithesis of cheap energy. It is about hard labor, dirt, chicken tractors, double-dug garden beds, nutrient recycling, composting, and especially low-imput low-impact human-powered gardening..


What makes you think Blume's propositions don't fit into "sustainable food production" (the original permaculture goals) and "low-input low-impact" methods? Why, because it goes against your dogma. It's getting tedious.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'W')ho's getting mad? You're acting a bit odd here. The above was regarding a specific potential risk. I thought it wasn't really a risk, and you start ranting about voodoo. Who's the one using odd debating techniques?
I get mad because we went through this in the past and you don't learn, you don't listen, and I do not like rehashing worn out arguments.


Err, I was saying that I don't think seed dispersal is an genuine risk for wind power. You still haven't told me exactly why this prompted your "voodoo" remark. I guess we can drop it, as you were just having a go for no apparent reason.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'D')avep this site does not exist for your pleasure alone. Someone is managing it for a reason: to discuss the timing and implications of peak oil and the possibilities and hope of avoiding or at least mitigating the consequences of this profound event. Every time you parrot denial bullshit someone new to the site gets all dumb and returns to their hopeless dream land, thus making my job harder. And so everytime you argue stupidity you attract my attention.

You really are an arrogant idiot. I don't parrot any denial stuff at all. That's something you desperately try to read between the lines to get to. Just because I think Blume's techniques would be useful in an on-farm setup (as does Monte btw) does not mean I am in denial. Get a grip before spilling more bile please. You don't seem to appreciate anything that goes beyond your personal viewpoint. That's your problem, not the site's.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'U')ntil you can convince me that basic ethanol production energy-positive then your new-age version remains a joke.

Basic ethanol production doesn't need to be energy positive, if using sustainable energy sources. Ethanol is a versatile liquid fuel, trees aren't. I've shown you some figures on the Blume thread anyway. If you're not convinced, again, that's your problem.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby davep » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 20:23:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wiki', ']')In ecology, overshoot occurs when a population exceeds the long term carrying capacity of its environment. The consequence of overshoot is called a crash or die-off. For a classic application of this concept to human experience, see Catton.


The carrying capacity includes the ability of an ecosystem is accept and dispose of waste materials. We are witnessing the toxic buildup of CO2, mercury, ozone, and other wastes beyond the capacity of the planet to lock them up and render them stable and harmless--to us humans. We are crapping in our nests and rendering it too filthy to live in.


The toxic buildups you mention are a function of our industrialised society. I agree that we're crapping in our nests, but this could happen even if we were 1 billion. If we miraculously went to a sustainable way of life without these toxins being emitted any further, I think we could survive as a species. That is what carrying capacity is about. It's a theoretical limit to growth at a given moment in time. So theoretically we could live sustainably and theoretically we may be able to feed the world. The toxins are not an indicator of reduced carrying capacity (they're an indicator of our society's shortsightedness), but they may reduce carrying capacity.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby davep » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 20:35:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '[')b]Basic ethanol production doesn't need to be energy positive, if using sustainable energy sources. Ethanol is a versatile liquid fuel, trees aren't. I've shown you some figures on the Blume thread anyway. If you're not convinced, again, that's your problem.
Doesn't need to be energy postive . . . ? You suggest then we should replace our primary liquid fuel (petroleum) with a substance (ethanol) that uses itself up in it's own production?


There's nothing wrong with a net reduction in energy if you get a better, more versatile product in the process (so long as the sources are sustainable).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '.') . . if using sustainable energy sources. fmyaai. Davep you are much much dumber than I could have ever imagined. After all this time and debate you still come up with doozies like this. I must say you are either clinically unbalanced or a a complete moron who does not deserve the company of adults


Your repeated attempts to out-Monte Monte are getting a bit silly. You obviously don't understand the subtleties of what I'm saying. So I'll type slowly. Say, for example, you have biomass and carbohydrates from your sustainable farm. You use a certain amount of the biomass to produce say 2/3 of the biomass energy as ethanol. You can then use that ethanol in situations that are more useful to you. Other energy sources could be process biogas (see Blume thread) or solar energy. You end up with a versatile liquid fuel. This isn't for running the world's cars, it's for running my farm. It's repeatable in local appropriate agricultural systems and has other benefits in a holistic system. I quite like the idea, but I'm clinically imbalanced :roll:
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby davep » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 20:40:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wiki', ']')In ecology, overshoot occurs when a population exceeds the long term carrying capacity of its environment. The consequence of overshoot is called a crash or die-off. For a classic application of this concept to human experience, see Catton.


The carrying capacity includes the ability of an ecosystem is accept and dispose of waste materials. We are witnessing the toxic buildup of CO2, mercury, ozone, and other wastes beyond the capacity of the planet to lock them up and render them stable and harmless--to us humans. We are crapping in our nests and rendering it too filthy to live in.


The toxic buildups you mention are a function of our industrialised society. I agree that we're crapping in our nests, but this could happen even if we were 1 billion.
no actually this did not happen when we were 1 billion. There were still dodos, passenger pigeons, and intact tropical rainforests when we were 1 billion.


Are you being deliberately stupid? I said it could happen if we were 1 billion. I.e. if we had the same sort of society as we do now, but with 1 billion. The toxic waste would still build up and would not be an indicator of overshoot.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'I')f we miraculously went to a sustainable way of life without these toxins being emitted any further, I think we could survive as a species. That is what carrying capacity is about. It's a theoretical limit to growth at a given moment in time. So theoretically we could live sustainably and theoretically we may be able to feed the world. The toxins are not an indicator of reduced carrying capacity (they're an indicator of our society's shortsigtedness), but they may reduce carrying capacity.I do believe miraculous is the key word here. Do yo believe in fairies?

Not at all. Discussing carrying capacity is all about theoretical limits to growth. By not addressing the theoretical potential you don't approach an understanding of carrying capacity.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron