Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Shale Gas Thread Pt 2 (merged)

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

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 30 Aug 2013, 08:41:28

Tanada - Especially when you consider they way Estonia uses their "shale production" is more akin to burning coal than drilling horizontal holes. Their position is easy to understand; if it ain't broken don't fix it. Ignoring the environmental factor they are in a comfortable situation.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 06 Sep 2013, 11:27:00

Apparently not all shales are created equal. From:

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/1 ... w/?all=HG2

“China has gone back to the drawing board on how to develop what could be the world's largest shale gas reserves after attempts to stimulate investment and engineer an energy revolution brought little progress in the gas fields. Beijing has struggled to find a way to emulate the frenetic exploration and production activity of the shale gas boom in the United States, and the latest setback makes reaching even a modest 2015 output target of 6.5 billion cubic metres unlikely.

An eclectic mix of new participants in the sector drag their heels on development, while China's biggest energy companies prioritize spending on other oil and gas projects. Frustrated with slow progress on shale from state energy giants PetroChina and Sinopec Corp, China in late 2012 encouraged a broad range of companies - including a property developer and a grains trader - to bid in its second shale gas auction.

Not one of the 16 firms that won exploration rights had ever drilled a gas well. But they did promise to spend at least $2 billion over three years to pump gas from shale. Beijing hoped this might give the sector a jolt. But eight months later, the Ministry of Land and Resources (MLR) said the firms have barely started seismic work and one of them sold a stake in a block before doing anything.

Slow development of China's enormous shale gas potential and missed output targets may be bad news as the country tries to develop domestic gas supplies to ease its heavy dependence on dirtier coal and expensive imports of oil and gas. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates China is sitting on 1,115 trillion cubic feet of shale gas, nearly double the size of the reserves in the United States.”

Apparently “sitting” on huge reserves is not the same thing as producing huge reserves.

“The problem for Beijing is that PetroChina and Sinopec are reluctant to devote resources to shale gas after experiencing hefty exploration costs for low output in pilot drilling. China has to date spent around 10 billion yuan ($1.6 billion) to drill around 130 shale gas wells. PetroChina and Sinopec, which hold the rights to the most prospective shale acreage in China, have drilled most of them. Only a handful of those wells are producing over 40,000 cubic metres of gas a day, deemed a break-even level for the $13 million to $16 million each well costs, officials said.

One of the challenges Chinese firms have struggled to overcome is how to adapt shale technology developed in the U.S. to China's geology. Chinese shale formations tend to be deeper than those in the U.S."
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby SamInNebraska » Fri 06 Sep 2013, 22:39:03

ROCKMAN wrote:Apparently not all shales are created equal. From:

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/1 ... w/?all=HG2

One of the challenges Chinese firms have struggled to overcome is how to adapt shale technology developed in the U.S. to China's geology. Chinese shale formations tend to be deeper than those in the U.S."


Yes, Chinese shale is such a different shale than shale in the US. In the US we have shale on the surface (Devonian in Pennsylvania for example) and deeper shale (like the really deep Eagleford) and so Chinese shale must be different than all the shales in the US between 0 and 19,000' or so.

I find it a riot when people try and explain poor well results because of depth.
SamInNebraska
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun 14 Oct 2012, 22:05:58

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 07 Sep 2013, 10:43:31

Actually a lot of China's shale gas is located at depths of 6000 metres, add to that a couple of km for a horizontal well and you are talking about 8000 m which say comparing to an equivalent horizontal section in the eagleford would be just slightly less than double.
At greater depths you have to overcome greater pressures in order to induce a fracture which requires more surface equipment etc. As well temperatures are higher which limits some of the equipment that can be used (certain logging equipment isn't built to function at very high temperatures).
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5592
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 13 Sep 2013, 14:41:43

Once again the oil patch owes President Obama and his administration a big thanks. Shipping more LNG out of the country will hopefully get the price of NG up sooner. It’s always helpful to have the govt doing what it can to increase the cost of fossil fuels to the American consumer. If all goes to plan this one plant will be able to remove 7.3 TRILLION CUBIC FEET of NG from the domestic market place over the term of the contracts.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/En ... cellus-gas

"On Wednesday, the Department of Energy approved the application of Dominion Energy to export LNG from its Cove Point terminal in Maryland. Originally built as an import terminal, with this approval the facility will undergo extensive retrofitting and upgrading, at an expected cost of $3.4-$3.8 billion. This approval is important for drillers because it is the first LNG export facility to be approved outside of the Gulf Coast. Cove Point is the terminus of a direct pipeline from Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale region, allowing direct exports of the gas coming from Pennsylvania. This region has largely suffered because of a lack of natural gas pipeline interconnections with markets; there simply has not been enough capacity to use the record amounts of gas produced from the Marcellus in Pennsylvania. Once this facility is up and running (projected for 2017), Dominion has secured contracts with Japan's Sumitomo and India's GAIL to provide the full capacity of about 1 billion cubic feet per day over 20 years.

This is the fourth approval of LNG exports, and the third approved in less than three months signaling an acceleration in permit approvals. Secretary Moniz, in his confirmation hearings, had pledged that he supports LNG exports, and President Obama has signaled that he does as well. In meetings with the State Department, they have made clear that their goal is to help create a global market for natural gas."

Global smobal….just get the NG out of the US market place. Thanks Dog the democrats are in charge. Mucho thanks, bro!
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby godq3 » Sun 15 Sep 2013, 02:01:14

ROCKMAN wrote:O It’s always helpful to have the govt doing what it can to increase the cost of fossil fuels to the American consumer.

In long term it is helpful. Imagine how much less oil would be wasted in USA, if the price of gasoline/diesel wouldn't be so cheap in past decades and now. I'm pretty sure that NG is also wasted because it's so cheap in the US. In short term it hurts, but in long term it makes you more efficient.
User avatar
godq3
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Tricity, PL

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 15 Sep 2013, 07:20:55

g - Some validity to you point. OTOH I was just being my smartass self with that post. Higher NG won't significantly increase efficiency IMHO. We are already rather efficient converting NG to energy. I suspect what you really mean is reduced consumption. What it would do is destroy an amount of demand. That demand destruction would equate to folks being colder in the winter and hotter in the summer increasing suffering and mortality. It would also reduce commercial activity, especially in manufacturing, to some degree. Not a good approach to reducing unemployment.

Using NG more efficiently would be good for the economy. Having a significant portion of the economy lost to higher NG prices wouldn't be good. Also consider the exported US NG isn't being saved for our future use so it's not as if the world is burning fewer Btu's. Lots of energy lost converting NG to LNG and then there's the energy spent to transport many thousands of miles. Not a particularly "efficient" of our finite resource IMHO. The only difference would be that the US wouldn't be burning those Btu's but consumers would be paying more.

OTOH it would be a great boost for me and my cohorts. Higher NG prices would allow us to utilize more energy inefficient methods to drill for NG that currently aren't economic. Or as Tarzan would say: "Efficiency good. Demand destruction juju." LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Sun 15 Sep 2013, 12:49:15

Higher prices will prepare us for the future. Iow ng prices in the us are kind of like gasoline prices in venezuela.

DC
dcoyne78
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 18:45:15

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Sun 15 Sep 2013, 17:18:47

Why shouldn't energy companies be able to export their products, whether it is efficient or not does not matter? It is a good thing for the US that all other countries don't have a policy of no energy exports.

On the jobs front, if natural gas prices are too low, then less natural gas will be produced which means fewer jobs in the energy industry, as natural gas prices rise, wind power and solar become more competitive and again we could see a rise in employment building wind turbines and installing solar panels. Higher heating and cooling costs may lead to replacement of older air conditioning and heating systems again more jobs, and to improved insulation and sealing of older homes, and possibly window and door replacements. People may decide to build a new low energy use home. Again more jobs. All of this puts the economy in a better position to adjust to lower future oil and gas availability.

DC
dcoyne78
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 18:45:15

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 16 Sep 2013, 06:55:13

DC - All valid points. The problem comes from a timing standpoint IMHO. If it were a gradual and consistent swing in price some orderly change might occur. But the price volatility along with the subsequent boom/bust drilling cycles over the last 10+ years would argue against that possibility. Back to the same old problem: our economy doesn't respond like that: we swing from general complacency to panic mode.

I agree about exports. OTOH when we have the next supply crisis we both know how the public and politicians will respond. Your license plate an odd or even number? LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby dcoyne78 » Mon 16 Sep 2013, 11:38:36

Hi Rockman,

I agree on the lack of price stability. I would think that it will take some time to get the LNG export terminals up and running so these should not be a big shock to the system, some of the big shocks previously were due to wars (1973 and 1979-1982), the other shock in 2005-2008 was probably due to unexpected decline in Mexico and the North Sea combined with an unexpected uptick in demand from Asia. These will happen in the future as well and are tough to predict in advance. Only a pretty strong increase in real oil prices will enable supply to match demand, I think that eventually the focus on liquids in the US will result in a rise in natural gas prices, impossible to say how rapid that price rise will be, so far it has been pretty gradual.

I doubt we will see the odd/even plate routine (I am younger than you ) so I wasn't driving in 73/4, but I do remember buying a locking gas cap for my beater in 1980 (68 Pontiac Catalina that got 14 MPG if I drove conservatively). If the Mideast is engulfed in a major war then all bets are off.

DC
dcoyne78
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013, 18:45:15

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 16 Sep 2013, 12:10:15

DC - I doubt I'll see long lines at the gas pump but that's mostly due to my age. LOL. being older than you I have a more complete history of watch our society act illogically. I know it might not seem fair to paint with such a broad brush but look at the relative complacency we see today. $3.50 gasoline is now the norm. The vast majority of the population has a job. New affordable health care is just around the corner. We're going ever deeper in national debt and that isn't causing any problems, etc. etc.

Everything is OK until it's not OK in our society. And then we start making national knee jerk decisions. That's the world I recall for my last 62 years. Difficult to expect a different pattern in the future.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 17 Sep 2013, 12:24:46

New Fracking Emissions Study Brings Out The Usual Suspects

From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellync ... -suspects/

I would agree with the opponents that this study doesn’t really answer the question sufficiently. Not because I think the conclusion are incorrect but just because it was too narrowly focused. From the reservoir to the burner tip some amount of methane is leaked to the atmosphere unburned. And given its GHG capabilities this is not a good thing. But everyone on both sides of the argument is focusing on relatively small individual components of a very big system. I’ve looked but can’t find the details but have seen reports regarding a significant amount of methane that is leaked from local distribution systems many hundreds of miles from the well head.

But cherry picking analysis won’t ever answer the question. One counter argument against frac’ng leaks is mentioned in this article but the most important aspects of that analysis was left it: the airborne testing above a CO NG field didn’t take into account natural NG leaks in the area. Was that volume insignificant to what might be leaking from the wells in the field below? Don’t know…that analysis wasn’t done.

This analysis found that there was a volume of NG leaked from the studied wells but that was leakage not associated with frac'ng but from parts of the production equipment used in conventional non-frac’d wells. Both sides of the debate seem intent on focusing on just that segment of the entire NG production system that supports their prejudice. That’s not scientific analysis IMHO. More importantly, it’s not honest.

“The latest study on shale gas emissions has caused a bit of a stir, noting that the wells do not appear to be emitting significant amounts of methane, which is an important finding. There are however a number of other relevant points that have emerged. First, the researchers did find significant leakage, but at other points than the wells, most notably in the gas-water separation process. This highlights the fact that methane leakage is important and needs to be addressed, but independently of the question of hydraulic fracturing. The natural gas supply chain is long and some parts of it, such as urban distribution systems, are thought to be possible sources of significant leakage. In all likelihood, the Power Law applies, wherein most leakage comes from a small portion of sources.

Next , many correctly have pointed out that the study is somewhat limited, as the authors admit, covering only a small number of wells owned by companies that volunteered to be part of the research. This is a valid point, although usually overlooked by fracking critics when applied to studies whose results they prefer. But it only means that, as with any study, the results are not necessarily universally applicable. And following on from this is the bias in some analysts who, first of all, dismiss the results out of hand and attack the involvement of some producing companies as invalidating any findings, but more generally show a refusal to accept any results they dislike. Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy dismisses the study as “fatally flawed” in part because it contradicts other findings. This is not the stance of scientists, but ideologues. Indeed, Philip Radford of Greenpeace primarily rants against the industry and methane. He, too, attacks the findings for disagreeing with a recent NOAA study that found much higher levels in a field in Utah, but doesn’t note that the measurements were done on a single day, which would also seem to be limiting.

The phrase “more research is needed” seems a cliché but is very true, however, this particular study does imply both that earlier estimates of leakage may have been too high, but also that wellhead leakage can be reduced. The potential that improved maintenance of compressors and pipeline seals elsewhere in the system might have a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions should be pursued by identifying actual emissions more broadly, something both the industry and environmentalists should embrace.

At the same time, it would be helpful if commentaries were less biased on focused more on the facts. The scientists, and some media and industry observers, seem to have no trouble admitting the limitations even of a study whose results they find agreeable, while the kneejerk reactions from some fracking opponents is highly informative of their prejudices.”
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 21 Sep 2013, 10:14:35

Looks like Chevron and Shell are planning to make a serious push at developing shale gas in the Ukraine.

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/1 ... e_Gas_Deal
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 21 Sep 2013, 10:28:55

Looks like serious evaluation of the shales in Australia's Cooper Basin is about to begin. But it will be slow: the first 4 wells won't be tested for productivity until mid 2014. And that's only if the initial evaluation indicates some potential.

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/1 ... oper_Basin
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sat 21 Sep 2013, 13:53:31

There has already been a significant amount of work done on the shales in the Cooper. Santos claimed commerciality on a shale gas well in 2012 that they suggest has around 7 BCF of reserves. I believe they started the Moolomba initial development (6 wells pilot) this year.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5592
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby Graeme » Fri 18 Oct 2013, 18:38:51

Major Study Projects No Long-Term Climate Benefit From Shale Gas Revolution

Most claims that shale gas will significantly reduce US carbon emissions in the future are based on little more than hand-waving and wishful thinking. That’s because those claims assume natural gas is replacing coal only, rather than replacing some combination of coal, renewables, nuclear power, and energy efficiency — which is obviously what will happen in the real world.

To figure out what the impact of shale gas is actually going to be, you need an energy-economy model. And since the output of one model depends crucially on the specific assumptions it makes, the best approach would be to look at results of several models. And that is precisely what Stanford’s Energy Modeling Forum does in its new study, “Changing the Game? Emissions and Market Implications of New Natural Gas Supplies Report.”

They “formed a working group of about 50 experts and advisors from companies, government agencies and universities” to study the impact of the North American shale gas revolution:

Modeling teams from 14 different organizations participated in the study. All models integrated information on energy supply and demand to provide prices that reached market balances for each individual fuel. The models used different approaches to determine these prices.

The top figure shows result of the models that extend to 2050 (though the results are not substantially different if the modeling stops at 2035). Note that for most models, CO2 emissions grow in both shale cases. The study points out that “Emission growth rates for the reference case are not shown because they track closely those for the two-shale cases.”

The high shale gas scenario is optimistic about both the ultimately recoverable resource base and recovery rates per well, which reduces natural gas production costs. Yet, averaging over all the models, these optimistic assumptions have little net impact on CO2 growth compared to the more pessimistic low shale gas case.

Why doesn’t abundant and cheap natural gas matter much for long-term U.S. CO2 trends? Over time, and especially post-2020:

… natural gas begins to displace nuclear and renewable energy that would have been used otherwise in new power plants under reference case conditions.


The EMF model results underscore the key finding from a July study by the Center for American Progress (where I am a senior fellow), concludes: “There needs to be a swift transition from coal to a zero-carbon future by ensuring that the use of natural gas, particularly in the electric-power sector, peaks within the next 7 years to 17 years.”


thinkprogress
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby Graeme » Mon 28 Oct 2013, 15:53:12

Scientists wary of shale oil and gas as US energy salvation

After 10 years of production, shale gas in the United States cannot be considered commercially viable, according to several scientists presenting at the Geological Society of America meeting in Denver on Monday. They argue that while the use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling for "tight oil" is an important contributor to U.S. energy supply, it is not going to result in long-term sustainable production or allow the U.S. to become a net oil exporter.

Charles A.S. Hall, professor emeritus at the College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, is an expert on how much energy it takes to extract energy, and therefore which natural resources offer the best energy return on investment (EROI). He will describe two studies: one of the global patterns of fossil-fuel production in the past decade, and the other of oil production patterns from the Bakken Field (the giant expanse of oil-bearing shale rock underneath North Dakota and Montana that is being produced using hydraulic fracturing).

Both studies show that despite a tripling of prices and of expenditures for oil exploration and development, the production of nearly all countries has been stagnant at best and more commonly is declining—and that prices do not allow for any growth in most economies.

"The many trends of declining EROIs suggest that depletion and increased exploitation rates are trumping new technological developments," Hall said.


phys.org
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 13257
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 02 Nov 2013, 17:27:28

OTOH a $1.2 billion bet on the future of NG in the US - first NG pipeline laid into Manhattan in 40 years:

Spectra Energy Corp (NYSE: SE) Friday announced the successful completion of its New Jersey – New York Expansion Project. The new pipeline, an extension of Spectra Energy's Texas Eastern and Algonquin Gas systems, is designed to bring customers in the region 800 million cubic feet per day (mmcf/d) of natural gas supplies, as well as economic and environmental benefits.
R"Successfully completing this pipeline is a testament to our ability to secure, permit and execute on large and complex growth projects," said Greg Ebel, president and chief executive officer, Spectra Energy. "We've built the first natural gas pipeline into Manhattan in more than 40 years, one that will supply the region with safe, affordable, clean, domestic natural gas. Completing this pipeline is a great accomplishment, and one in which our team can take great pride." "The natural gas in this pipeline will warm homes, cook food and keep businesses running in New Jersey and New York for years to come. Customers in the region could save $700 million in energy costs each year while also replacing fuel oil with domestic and cleaner-burning natural gas," said Bill Yardley, president, U.S. Transmission and Storage, Spectra Energy. "We've invested the past five years speaking with stakeholders and officials, planning and re-planning, designing and constructing this pipeline, all to ensure it was completed safely, efficiently and to the highest standards."

Facts about the New Jersey-New York Expansion:
•A $1.2 billion, privately funded expansion of the Texas Eastern Transmission and Algonquin Gas Transmission pipeline systems
•Up to 800 mmcf/d capacity, enough to heat 2 million homes per day
◦Customers in New Jersey and New York projected to save an estimated $700 million annually in wholesale energy prices
◦Eliminates 6 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, the equivalent of removing 1 million cars from the road
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Shale Gas Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 15 Nov 2013, 09:31:39

From Rig Zone: Reuters – “Royal Dutch Shell and China's Sinopec Corp are drilling exploration wells to test shale potential in central China.

China, believed to hold the world's largest shale gas resource, has drawn international firms to hunt for the unconventional gas, with Shell the first among them to land a production sharing contract. Shell and Sinopec have completed drilling Liye-1….A Sinopec official said the well was completed last August but was subsequently sealed after results from hydraulic fracturing were not "very satisfactory". Shell and Sinopec are now drilling the second well, Engye-1, and a third one is also planned, officials said.

China, still in the early stages of developing the fuel, has drilled less than 150 exploration wells, mostly in and around the Sichuan basin in southwest China. Commercial output is tiny. Shell secured China's first shale gas product sharing contract in March last year to develop the Sichuan block. Much of the $1 billion investment Shell spent this year on China's upstream business went to Sichuan, Shi Jiangtao. A former Shell executive said last year that Shell plans to spend at least that much a year exploring China's shale gas.

In August Shell revealed a $2.2 billion charge against its weak U.S shale business and abandoned its 2017 goal to deliver 4 million barrels per day of total production. CEO Peter Voser said in October it will take a longer time than expected for Shell to reap benefits from its global shale gas projects due to poor short-term results.”

“…it will take a longer time…due to poor short-term results.” Reminds me of the old joke - a manufacturer was asked how he planned to stay in business since he was losing $10 on every widget he made. Easy he said: “We’ll make it up on volume”. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10671
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests