Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

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

Moderator: Pops

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby pstarr » Thu 23 Feb 2017, 20:29:49

Plantagenet wrote:Hey---I used to work at a famous oil company, but now I"m just an academic geophysicist so a theoretical model is good enough for me these days.

I had no idea! Impressive. Perhaps you could share your analysis of the ETP model with us? That would be great!

Cheers :)
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25443
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 23 Feb 2017, 20:41:21

They don't lose the oil, but they lose the value of the oil on their books. For instance, Exxon's oil reserves are now 15% smaller then they were last week. For people who care about value investing---a shrinking minority in this stock market----the loss of 15% of their reserves means Exxon stock is worth less.


NO, once again. The market cap of XOM is 335 GB that is hardly worthless. If you had bought a hundred thousand shares back in 1990 and hung on to them your investment would have increased in value by ~$700,000. The stock has a dividend yield of 3.67% which remains unchanged and it’s P/E ratio is suggesting there is growth ahead. This is a “paper valuation” exercise that would only be significant if you believed oil could never rise above last years average price, which it already has. Many of the reserves which were written down from P1 will return this year if there is a higher average price...they just shifted category for a short period of time.

They also lose the "time-value" of the money they've sunk into these failed oil fields. For example, lets say Exxon has sunk a couple of billion dollars into buying the land and exploring and developing it before they wrote off the 3.3 billion bbls of oil. That couple of billion dollars is GONE. If Exxon still had the two billion or whatever that they wasted on these written down assets, they could put that money in the bank or buy back Exxon stock or invest in better oil prospects. 

Whether that spent capital is kept on the books as a liability or written off is only an accounting valuation and doesn’t say anything about the underlying value unless you truly believe oil prices cannot rise above the average price of 2016. Once the money is spent it is spent regardless of whether you take an asset write down. And even if the asset is written down it doesn’t mean it can’t reappear unless it is monetized (i.e. sold or traded). This is extremely common and has happened countless times. ENCANA took huge write downs in their gas reserves only to see them eventually produced anyways. Oil companies time their write downs. Often it makes sense to carry potential losses on your books as long as possible and sometimes it makes sense to bundle them all up and write them down. It says little about what the company actually has. Has all that oil that yesterday was P1 suddenly vanished never to be seen again? Of course not. As long as the average price of oil is higher in 2017 than it was in 2016 some if not all of those proven reserves will come back. That is why in years of falling prices a companies replacement ratio can look poor whereas in years where the prices have risen it can look quite good.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 24 Feb 2017, 01:47:22

I wish you guys would click the links and read the news stories so you know what you are talking about when you post your comments.

This write-down by Exxon isn't some simple accounting trick. It represents a big financial hit for the corporation. Lets look at the numbers:

1. Exxon has spent 16 BILLION dollars on their Canadian oil sands project. How much money have they made from it so far? ZERO.

Can you do that math? If you spend 16 Billion and you make zero, how much money have you lost so far?

2. Some here are claiming that Exxon will simply reinstate these reserves in a few months when the price of oil goes back up. Sorry, thats not how the SEC rules work. When EXXON writes down this oil, under SEC rules they can't reinstate this oil for at least the NEXT FIVE YEARS.

Do you know what that means? That means EXXON has already lost 16 BILLION DOLLARS and has no hope of recouping the lost money for the next five years! It also means they lose the use of the 16 BILLION DOLLARS. They could've just stuck this money in a bank and made a billion in interest, but instead they locked it up in this failed oil sands project at Kearl RIver.

exxon-takes-historic-cut-to-oil-reserves-

If they'd waited Exxon probably could've bought the oil sands land they've got today for pennies on the dollar compared to what they originally paid, but instead Exxon wasted 16 billion dollars.

Cheers!

Image
The expensive to produce tar sands oil reserves at the failed Exxon project at Kearl River Canada were just written down by Exxon
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20042
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby tita » Fri 24 Feb 2017, 03:55:05

Plantagenet wrote:
" any increase in oil prices will tend to increase oil production from US shale and elsewhere. This in turn will tend to extend the glut"


Right on schedule, US oil production rose again last month. Now its up over 9 million bbls/day.

US oil production has gone up 500,000 bbls a day just since October---which not so coincidentally is when KSA and OPEC announced their plan to voluntarily cut their production, causing oil prices to start going up.

In the USA Higher oil prices = higher oil production.

Beware of the numbers! Yes, in the Weekly petroleum reports from IEA, it appears that US production increased by 500'000bbls per day since october. But:
- What is the share of this increase coming from Offshore plays? It was expected to increase and it is not related to short price fluctuations.
- Also, offshore plays have a lot of variation months to months. Sept 2016 production was the lowest of 2016.
- Using the monthly petroleum report, the increase is 200'000 bbls since october.
- Weekly reports are estimates which can be off by 300'000 bbls... up or down.

Tight oil production may increase this year. But how much? Remember they are recovering, some plays (eagle ford, bakken) are still decreasing. This is not the 2013-2014 situation, we won't see 700k-1 millions bbls/d increase.

Your definition of a glut is right. As long as inventories increase, we are in a glut. Either because of sluggish demand or high production. But how bad is the glut? Well, it is a bit simplified, but if we take the crude inventories y/y since 2014, we find
26.02.2014: 362.4 millions bbls
25.02.2015: 434.1 millions bbls (yeah, the 68 millions build led to the plunge of prices)
24.02.2016: 507.6 millions bbls (whoops, 73 millions increase, and another plunge)
23.02.2017: 518.7 millions bbls (ok, 10 millions increase... much slower)

Okay, last weeks saw continous increase of inventories. But this is also usual in this time of the year. Refineries operates at lower rates, inventory build for the high season (even if it's historically high). The important thing is the variations year on year, not the level. So, the market seems quite balanced... which is why the price don't really move in any direction. And there is nothing on the horizon that tend to give a direction.
User avatar
tita
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby tita » Fri 24 Feb 2017, 04:20:34

Plantagenet wrote:2. Some here are claiming that Exxon will simply reinstate these reserves in a few months when the price of oil goes back up. Sorry, thats not how the SEC rules work. When EXXON writes down this oil, under SEC rules they can't reinstate this oil for at least the NEXT FIVE YEARS.

This is not what your article state. The SEC rule is that you can't account reserves that can't be economically produced within 5 years (at today's prices). So, next year, if 2017 price mean is higher, the reserves (that were not economical with 2016 price but economical with 2017 price) will be back in the proved reserve. This is accounting rules, not physical change (although the oil produced in 2016 is also accounted in those 3.3 billions proved reserve decrease)
User avatar
tita
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby tita » Fri 24 Feb 2017, 04:44:28

ROCKMAN wrote:And a bit of history about oil patch write downs. From the Motley Fool in 2015. Looking at stocks, like Chevron's a pretty good call: increasing from $78/share to $118 (a 50% gain) in a little more then a year...and paying dividends in the process:
(..)
Let me ask you this: Is Saudi Arabia about to cut production? Is China (or any other country) about to take off? Personally, I have my doubts. For these reasons, the current crisis looks a lot more like 1986 than 1998. So if history repeats itself, then Suncor is likely making a big mistake. And as an investor, you should stay away. If you’re looking for a turnaround story, the free report below reveals a much better option than any oil company."

Haha, so where are we now? KSA (and OPEC) is cutting production, but no country is really taking off. Are we back in 1981 when KSA was cutting production trying to keep the price steady, while other producers (non OPEC) increased production (tight oil now?), and global economy was sluggish. First it was 1986, now 1981 (my call)... are we going backwards?

History repeats, but never the same way or in the same order. No fun otherwise. The actual glut is new, and is taking other paths than the other experienced before, despite similarities.
User avatar
tita
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 24 Feb 2017, 06:18:46

A write down of the Kerl Oil Sands project is not the same thing as tossing it away and losing the entire investment. They still own the land/rights and will until they either sell or otherwise divest themselves of it. If prices stay right where they are today those oil sands are already worth $8/bbl more than they were at the 2016 average price. That means part or all of them ARE economic to produce in 2017 even though by SEC rules they can not claim them for tax purposes.

I think you are suffering the big disconnect between the accounting world view and the physical world view. If Exxon does divest themselves of the Kerl resources then whomever acquires them gets the advantage of that 16 Billion already invested in developing the land for extraction and processing.

Just because some paper pusher at the SEC accounting department says something is worthless for stock value purposes does NOT mean it is actually valueless. Big companies like Exxon-Mobile have any number of projects that have no reservoir value for accounting purposes today, for example if they have a deep water lease that they have not yet drilled it has no 'proven' resources, but they still have it for future development.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13719
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 24 Feb 2017, 10:34:05

P - "Exxon has spent 16 BILLION dollars on their Canadian oil sands project. How much money have they made from it so far? ZERO." Really...ZERO??? First, XOM owns only a minority interest in this project...not 100%. Second, the project has been spitting out revenue for a while: in 2016 it produced over 60 MILLION BBLS OF OIL. That's about $1.8 BILLION in gross revenue.

Some details: "Kearl has an estimated 4.6 billion barrels of recoverable bitumen resource. Production at Kearl’s initial development began in April 2013 while the start-up began in 2015. Kearl is jointly owned by Imperial (71 percent) and ExxonMobil Canada (29 percent)."

Also I haven't noticed anyone mention a silver lining to those write down "loses": the reduced income tax benefit. Remember companies only pay taxes on NET INCOME: revenue - "loses". This factor plays a role in the timing of a pubco's voluntary write downs: timing that maximizes the tax benefit.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10146
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 24 Feb 2017, 11:39:36

ROCKMAN wrote: I haven't noticed anyone mention a silver lining to those write down "loses": the reduced income tax benefit. Remember companies only pay taxes on NET INCOME: revenue - "loses". This factor plays a role in the timing of a pubco's voluntary write downs: timing that maximizes the tax benefit.


All things considered, I'll bet EXXON would have preferred profits over losses on these operations.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20042
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 24 Feb 2017, 12:01:22

tita wrote:Your definition of a glut is right.


Thank you for making a rational post.

tita wrote:...we are in a glut.....But how bad is the glut? ....if we take the crude inventories y/y since 2014, we find
26.02.2014: 362.4 millions bbls
25.02.2015: 434.1 millions bbls (yeah, the 68 millions build led to the plunge of prices)
24.02.2016: 507.6 millions bbls (whoops, 73 millions increase, and another plunge)
23.02.2017: 518.7 millions bbls (ok, 10 millions increase... much slower)

...... And there is nothing on the horizon that tend to give a direction.


Of course the oil glut is going to end. The question is when. As you note inventories are still building slowly, so there is still a slight supply overhang. The US inventory number isn't the whole story either, as the Obama administration ended the ban on US crude oil exports and the US is now exporting increasing amounts of crude oil----

The bottom line here is that the higher oil prices of the last 5 months have resulted in INCREASED US oil production and that will tend to extend the glut.

CHEERS!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20042
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 24 Feb 2017, 12:03:46

I guess it would help if folks actually looked at what Exxon is saying in their press release rather than going to a third party news release that obviously doesn't understand the issues. From the latest XOM press release:

As a result of very low prices during 2016, certain quantities of liquids and natural gas no longer qualified as proved reserves under SEC guidelines.

These amounts included the entire 3.5 billion barrels of bitumen at Kearl in Alberta, Canada. Another 800 million oil-equivalent barrels in North America did not qualify as proved reserves, mainly due to the acceleration of the projected economic end-of-field life. These revisions are not expected to affect the operation of the underlying projects or to alter the company’s outlook for future production volumes.


Consistent with SEC requirements, ExxonMobil reports reserves based on the average of the applicable market price prevailing on the first day of each calendar month during the year. Prices to date in 2017 have been higher than the average first-of-month prices in 2016. Among the factors that would result in these amounts being recognized again as proved reserves at some point in the future are a recovery in average price levels, a further decline in costs, and / or operating efficiencies


which is precisely what I (and others) have been pointing out.

1. the proven reserves are simply downgraded to another category. They remain on the books just are handled differently in terms of accounting and valuation
2. reserve audits and assessments are done each and every year for submission to SEC or similar regulatory bodies (instrument 51-101 in Canada). The average price of crude over the year must be used for economic analysis and the forecast for price increase generally cannot exceed an inflationary bump unless there is proof of a change to pricing in the future.
3. Each year is essentially a clean slate given what may not qualify as booked proven reserve this year might next year as a consequence of price or costs
4. What is reported often has little bearing on the companies ongoing activities. Companies develop resources that are currently uneconomic with a view to either being able to lower costs in the future or enjoy higher prices. Companies are all the time working on all the categories of reserves and resources
5. the impact is not that these reserves will be lost but that in the short term the company must report an impairment charge in their balance sheet which in turn could result in a large non-cash loss as has been the case for Exxon. For many smaller companies that require equity in the market or debt financing this can be problematic as it affects their ability to raise cash in the market through equity (lower valuation in any prospectus) and for those with reserve based credit facilities they will be in continuing discussions with lenders as to the overall negative impact on their ability to meet ceiling tests. Since Exxon is largely self financing the impact is not as severe.
6. the overall impact of such a write down is not readily noted until you dig through the entirety of their financials. As Rockman points out the potential impact on net revenue after tax is likely positive.

It is easy to make a mountain out of a molehill with regards to reserve write downs. If prices stay low for a number of years there will definitely be a problem but if they recover (which they have already to some extent) it isn't as big an issue.
What seems to be missed here is that even with such a large reserve write down XOM still managed a 70% reserve replacement ratio. They added 2.5 billion barrels.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5192
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 24 Feb 2017, 16:43:56

Plant - You still haven't answered the question: as per your chart what is the oil price at which we reach "equilibrium"? You must have a number since you claim there is a current "glut" as such must not have reached that price. So again I assume some day you will declare the "glut" is over when we hit that price. But if you don't know that number then for all you know the "glut" ended when oil hit $52/bbl...right?
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10146
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 24 Feb 2017, 16:54:26

Plant - "'l bet EXXON would have preferred profits over losses on these operations." The are divisions in XOM that would have preferred higher oil prices. And other divisions that are very happy with the lower prices. So no, "ExxonMobil" doesn't have a preference.

I think you keep forgetting about the basic concept behind a vertically integrated oil company. Personally the Rockman has become somewhat enthusiastic about the oil price collapse. Just had a lunchtime discussion today with a cohort today about the Rockman jumping ship to an A&D (Acquisition & Divestiture) company for a nice salary bump with big bonus potential. The Rockman has always been more qualified for that segment then E&P.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10146
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 24 Feb 2017, 17:07:14

ROCKMAN wrote: Personally the Rockman has become somewhat enthusiastic about the oil price collapse. Just had a lunchtime discussion today with a cohort today about the Rockman jumping ship to an A&D (Acquisition & Divestiture) company for a nice salary bump with big bonus potential. The Rockman has always been more qualified for that segment then E&P.


Good luck with your new company.

I hope you'll continue to share your insider view of the oil biz with us here.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20042
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 25 Feb 2017, 14:34:59

P - Mostly I just try to remind folks that "success" in the oil patch IS NOT dependent upon a high price of oil. Actually it can hinge on prices being low. If you get bored search the oil company "Hilcorp". Bought millions of bbls of very old (and thus VERY SLOWLY declining) proven oil reserves sometime ago on the cheap. Just did basic maintenance for years. And then...BOOM!...oil prices started shooting up 10 years ago. Originally less the 10 employees and now I think around 1,500. And now tens of thousands of geologists/engineers once employed chasing the shales thanks to high oil prices can't even get a job interview let alone a job.

BTW it's Hilcorp that's using that CO2 from the largest sequestration project in the world for enhanced oil recovery in one of those old fields it bought cheap a couple of decades ago. A field that's been producing for more the 70 years.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10146
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby sparky » Fri 03 Mar 2017, 07:51:45

.
On those Exxon reserves , they are mostly Canadian tar sands ,
From Exxon press release
http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-releas ... 6-reserves
"These amounts included the entire 3.5 billion barrels of bitumen at Kearl in Alberta, Canada. Another 800 million oil-equivalent barrels in North America did not qualify as proved reserves, mainly due to the acceleration of the projected economic end-of-field life"

while US fracking seems to be above water at 45$ ~50$ ,
it would appear that the oil sands number is higher
when we get there , again ,those reserves will be put back on the books
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3266
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby Revi » Fri 03 Mar 2017, 09:46:35

Writing off the tar sands.... Interesting!
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
User avatar
Revi
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6673
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Maine

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 03 Mar 2017, 12:52:52

sparky wrote:.
On those Exxon reserves , they are mostly Canadian tar sands ,
From Exxon press release
http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-releas ... 6-reserves
"These amounts included the entire 3.5 billion barrels of bitumen at Kearl in Alberta, Canada. Another 800 million oil-equivalent barrels in North America did not qualify as proved reserves, mainly due to the acceleration of the projected economic end-of-field life"

while US fracking seems to be above water at 45$ ~50$ ,
it would appear that the oil sands number is higher
when we get there , again ,those reserves will be put back on the books


As was pointed out up thread, or at least on a recent thread, the SEC price that the reserves must be calculated by for 2016 was around $43/bbl. Exxon did not scrap all their operations in Alberta, all they did was follow the law and take them off the books as reserve assets. They did not physically divest themselves of the land/lease/equipment. Actual production will be based on current prices and the cost/benefit analysis, the reserve level is just an accounting requirement. In another 12 months when the SEC uses the price for 2017 to set reserve requirements all those accounting dropped reserves will be back on the books, and quite likely a bunch more will be added because 2017 has been consistently over the 2015 price of about $48/bbl.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13719
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby sparky » Sat 04 Mar 2017, 02:06:34

.
Well My fault , I didn't make myself clear ,
this episode will reveal the commercial price of the tar sands , my guess between 60 ~ 70$

( why call it oil ? might as well call the floor of a garage oil concrete and with better reasons)

plantagenet , your supply/demand crossing of the curve is cute enough but the supply or even the demand don't follows continuous curves ,

it's more like
the liquid thermodynamic of super-cooling .
nothing much happen way below the theoretical point then the whole thing freeze in a "catastrophic" fashion

a cubic function with rise and dip

a positive feedback control , when the change create more change , driving the system to its physical limits
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3266
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Exxon cuts its oil reserves by 3.3 billion barrels

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 04 Mar 2017, 11:28:25

ROCKMAN wrote: And now tens of thousands of geologists/engineers once employed chasing the shales thanks to high oil prices can't even get a job interview let alone a job.


Really? I've hired a few, maybe not as drilling engineers and whatnot, but solid engineering positions using their skills. I've even got interns on the books now, kids who have only recently completed their junior year of petroleum engineering working on doing reserve evaluations for banks in Houston. Hadn't realized there were thousands out there competing nowadays, you described getting a job during the current glut, and you aren''t the only one still working right through it all. Just like the glut last time. And the time before that. And that.

But your comment reminds me I need to call a few schools to see how the pool of students is doing nowadays. I had heard that the routine of going into a graduate program because of lack of available jobs was happening, but don't have a feel for the numbers.

Rockman wrote:BTW it's Hilcorp that's using that CO2 from the largest sequestration project in the world for enhanced oil recovery in one of those old fields it bought cheap a couple of decades ago. A field that's been producing for more the 70 years.


70 years!! Wow! I remember the days when I was learning on century old oil fields...in the late 1970's. 70 years is maybe a long time, wherever Hilcorp is working? Sounds like they need some more experience!
AdamB
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests