Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Thermal Depolymerization Thread (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Unread postby sheilach » Mon 26 Jul 2004, 00:30:13

Hydro responded with-
What the hell kind of links are those?

Australia produces 700k barrels per day!? That's a drop in the hat of the global oil production. Nice to see you pick one arbitrary country that is declining and run with it like the world is ending.

Nice try guys, once again, you have nothing.


Poor "Hydro" he won't accept the evidence untill his SUV stalls on the freeway because it's out of gas and all the gas stations are closed untill further notice. :roll:

Some more facts-"London Times January 26, 2004 North Sea exploration a loser, say oil experts By Carl
Mortished, International Business Editor

OIL GROUPS face growing pressure to quit the North Sea amid evidence of global failure to find big new oil deposits. The world’s top ten energy companies are failing to find enough new crude to replenish their reserves, according to Wood Mackenzie, the oil consultancy, which sees exploration in the UK North Sea as the industry’s biggest waste of money over the past five years. "
Australia ,United States and the United Kingdom were once EXPORTER of oil, now they must import ever increasing amounts of it.
China's and India growing economies have greatly increased it's imports of OIL."

More facts-"
Gary North's REALITY CHECK


Issue 362 July 20, 2004


IS $30 OIL HISTORY?

Yes, according to T. Boone Pickens, the legendary Texas
investor, who specialized in oil plays. He was interviewed on
"The CBS Evening News" (July 18).

He was careful not to say that he had special information.
He was making a "gut" prediction. The Saudis, he said, are not
in a position to increase their oil output significantly. They
are straining to produce today's output.

He said that he thinks oil is headed to $50/barrel. Thirty
dollar oil is history. Gasoline could hit $3 a gallon before the
end of the year.
~Now, let us turn from geopolitics to energy resources
-- although they are getting so intricately linked
that distinction between the two will soon prove to be
almost impossible. In energy terms, the Middle East's
importance is clearly undergirded by its vast petroleum
reserves -- reserves which clearly dwarf those of
other regions, as the Oil and Gas Journal reminds us
year in and year out.

This is stating the obvious. But sometimes we tend to
overlook the obvious.

It should, however, be borne in mind, that even Middle
Eastern oil reserves are limited. Oman's abrupt output
plunge of 2002-2003 was but the first warning; Syria
has just entered its terminal oil decline; even Yemen
seems to have peaked. Some would argue that these are
only minor producers. Correct. But that doesn't mean
major producers won't some day follow suit. Even that
greatest of all producers, Saudi Arabia, the allegedly
unsinkable "producer for all seasons," has its limits."

And more facts-"Exxon Head: Energy Independence Is a Myth

Tue Jun 8, 8:19 AM ET Add Business - AP to My Yahoo!
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The idea of American energy independence is a myth and the United States must maintain "constructive relationships" with oil-producing countries for its own prosperity, the head of petroleum giant Exxon Mobil Corp. said Monday night.

"We do not have the resource base to be energy independent," Exxon Mobil chairman Lee R. Raymond said in a speech in which he outlined some of what he called the "hard truths" about global energy markets. "

"Army guard on food if fuel crisis flares

Mark Townsend and Martin Bright
Sunday June 6, 2004
The Observer

Hundreds of troops will be deployed to defend vital supermarket depots in the event of fresh fuel protests in the autumn.
Supermarkets have been told by Home Office officials to expect military assistance as part of draconian government plans to protect Britain's economy from a repeat of the events of 2000 when protesters brought the country to a standstill.

In addition, a series of large-scale rehearsals will be held over the coming month to test how measures to protect vital food and fuel depots would cope if protesters opt to press ahead with a series of blockades later in the year. ~Major retailers have also been assured that the intelligence services are stepping up their monitoring of potential protest ringleaders to ensure any major blockade is thwarted before any disruption is caused.

The secret plans have been agreed between the Home Office and the Food Chain Emergency Group, set up after the 2000 fuel protests and incorporating Britain's biggest supermarkets and food manufacturers. Their plans to safeguard the food and fuel chain from disruption go much further than tactics used by the police to quash previous fuel protests.

News that troops will be involved in any future fuel blockades follows reports that army chiefs had strongly opposed the use of soldiers to guarantee supplies in the event of fuel protests across the country. A network of vital fuel and food depots classified as 'vulnerable' to blockade have been pinpointed by industry experts from the Institute of Grocery Distribution and sent to the Home Office.

Although Chancellor Gordon Brown's decision on whether to risk a rise in fuel duty has been postponed to August, supermarkets have been told to remain on high alert. 'The Home Office has been in close contact and the security services are monitoring the situation, this is not just a police matter,' said a leading industry source. "

"Break out the bicycles

Oil is running out, but the west would rather wage wars than consider other energy sources

George Monbiot
Tuesday June 8, 2004
The Guardian

Some people have wacky ideas," the new Republican campaign ad alleges. "Like taxing gasoline more so people drive less. That's John Kerry." Cut to a shot of men in suits riding bicycles.
Sadly, the accusation is false. Kerry has been demanding that the price of oil be held down. He wants George Bush to release supplies from the strategic reserve and persuade Saudi Arabia to increase production. He has been warning the American people that if the president doesn't act soon, he and Dick Cheney will have to share a car to work. Men riding bicycles and sharing cars? Is there no end to this madness?

Like the fuel protests that rose and receded in Britain last week, these exchanges are both moronic and entirely rational. The price of oil has been rising because demand for a finite resource is growing faster than supply. Holding the price down means that this resource will be depleted more quickly, with the result that the dreadful prospect of men sharing cars and riding bicycles comes ever closer. Perhaps the presidential candidates will start campaigning next against the passage of time.

But a high oil price means recession and unemployment, which in turn means political failure for the man in charge. The attempt to blame the other man for finity will be one of the defining themes of the politics of the next few decades.

This conflict was exemplified last month by the leader of the British fuel protests of 2000, Brynle Williams. "I'm afraid to say I'm not very proud of what happened three years ago," he admitted in a documentary broadcast on S4C on May 4. "We all want turbo-charged motors now ... but we must remember that it's some poor sod at the other end of the world who ends up paying for it." Five days later, on May 9, he told GMTV that he was ready to start protesting again. Self-awareness and self-interest don't seem to mix very well.

To understand what is going to happen, we must first grasp the core fact of existence. Life is a struggle against entropy. Entropy can be roughly defined as the dispersal of energy. As soon as a system - whether an organism or an economy - runs out of energy, it starts to disintegrate. Its survival depends on seizing new sources of fuel.

Biological evolution is driven by the need to grab the energy for which other organisms are competing. One result is increasing complexity: a tree can take more energy from the sun than the mosses on the forest floor; a tuna can seek out its prey more actively than a jellyfish. But the cost of this complexity is an enhanced requirement for energy. The same goes for our economies.

They evolved in the presence of a source of energy that was both cheap to extract and cheap to use. There is, as yet, no substitute for it. Everything else is either more expensive or harder to use. Without cheap oil the economy would succumb to entropy.

But the age of cheap oil is over. If you doubt this, take a look at the BBC's online report yesterday of a conference run by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil. The reporter spoke to the chief economist of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol. "In public, Mr Birol denied that supply would not be able to meet rising demand ... But after his speech he seemed to change his tune: 'For the time being there is no spare capacity. But we expect demand to increase by the fourth quarter by 3m barrels a day. If Saudi does not increase supply by 3m barrels a day by the end of the year we will face, how can I say this, it will be very difficult. We will have difficult times.'" The reporter asked him whether such a growth in supply was possible, or simply wishful thinking. "'You are from the press?' Birol replied. 'This is not for the press.'" So the BBC asked the other delegates what they thought of the prospects of a 30% increase in Saudi production. "The answers were unambiguous: 'absolutely out of the question'; 'completely impossible'; and '3m barrels - never, not even 300,000'. One delegate laughed so hard he had to support himself on a table." And this was before they heard that two BBC journalists had been gunned down in Riyadh.

The world's problem is as follows. We now consume six barrels of oil for every new barrel we discover. Major oil finds (of over 500m barrels) peaked in 1964. In 2000, there were 13 such discoveries, in 2001 six, in 2002 two and in 2003 none. Three major new projects will come onstream in 2007 and three in 2008. For the following years, none have yet been scheduled.

The oil industry tells us not to worry: the market will find a way of sorting this out. If the price of energy rises, new sources will come onstream. But new sources of what? Every other option is much more expensive than the cheap oil that made our economic complexity possible.

The new technology designed to extract the dregs from old fields is expensive and doesn't seem to work very well, which is why Shell was forced to downgrade its anticipated reserves (other companies, under pressure from the US Securities and Exchange Commission, will surely follow). Extracting oil from tar sands and shales uses almost as much energy as it yields. The same goes for turning crops such as rape into biodiesel. Nuclear power is viable only if you overlook both the massive costs of decommissioning and the fact that no safe means has yet been discovered of disposing of the waste. We could cover the country with windmills and solar panels, but the electricity they produced would still be an expensive means of running our cars.

Just as the oil supply begins to look uncertain, global demand is rising faster than it has done for 16 years. Yesterday morning, General Motors announced that it is spending $3bn on doubling its production of cars for the Chinese market. Seventy-four minutes later, we saw the first signs of entropy: the International Air Travel Association revealed that the airlines are likely to lose $3bn this year because of high oil prices. The cheap carriers complained that they could be forced out of the market.

If the complexity of our economies is impossible to sustain, our best hope is to start to dismantle them before they collapse. This isn't very likely to happen. Faced with a choice between a bang and a whimper, our governments are likely to choose the bang, waging ever more extravagant wars to keep the show on the road. Terrorists, alert to both the west's rising need and the vulnerability of the pipeline and tanker networks, will respond with their own oil wars.

"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle," HG Wells wrote, "I no longer despair for the human race." It's a start, but I'd feel even more confident about our chances of survival if I saw George Bush and Dick Cheney sharing a car to work.

· George Monbiot's book The Age of Consent: a Manifesto for a New World Order is now published in paperback

www.monbiot.com "

Of course I could go on like this for a very long time, the facts boils down to this, oil and natural gas are a fossil fuel that was "made" over 60 MILLION years ago under very special geological conditions.Those conditions don't exist anymore.

For every 6 barrels of oil we use, we find only ONE.

Shouldn't that tell you something? :idea:

Oil wells all over the world are either in decline or at their peak, with decline soon to follow and yet our excessive population and demand for fossil fuels continues to RISE. 8O

Don't you see we have one hell of a problem with energy? :roll:

Without oil, the world can support only about 1.5 to 2 billion people.

We have at this point in time over 6.3 BILLION PEOPLE and growing! 8O

I think "hydro" needs to get his head out of the sand. :roll:

"Either deal with reality or reality will deal with YOU! "
Live like there's no tomorrow
User avatar
sheilach
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00

Dreaming of Peak Oil?

Unread postby Whitecrab » Thu 12 Aug 2004, 23:37:38

Now usually my dreams are of total nonsense, relate to nothing, and never, ever involve nightmares or consistent themes. But sometimes they have good commericials.

Lately, I've been having a few dreams about PO, or I'll fall asleep or wake up thinking about it. It's never after the crash stuff, just going over the issues or something. Just last night some of my old friends from highschool were reading PO books and I was going to talk to them, and just at that moment I woke up.


You?
"Our forces are now closer to the center of Baghdad than most American commuters are to their downtown office."
--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, April 2003
Whitecrab
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ontario, Canada

Unread postby Sprengtporten » Fri 13 Aug 2004, 06:14:54

I haven't had a peak oil all-out dream(or nightmare). But I did find myself endlessly calculating over and over again 'bout peak oil, so much so that in the end everything felt pretty real. Extremely hard concentration; kind of trance, if you wish. In the end 4 hours had gone although I thought it was just minutes. I even forgot to smoke although I usually smoke 20-30 coffinnails a day.

And the results were ... a bit boring. There was no real "big crash"; just sort of endless 70's recession.

Although electricity was expensive, no big time power blackdowns, either. All (labourish) EPA officials fired and replaced with nucleocrats. Nuke plant worksites as far eye could see; each reactor built replacing use of oil a bit and so giving a sigh of relief until depletion hits again. Sort of ratrace; nukeplant-depletion-nukeplant-depletion. Oil burning powerplants outlawed. Reprocessing ban from 1974 lifted; new reprocessing facilities.

Car industry in slow but sure decline. Displacement going from 8-liter V10 (Dodge Viper 2004) first to 5-liter V8(Ford Mustang 1968), then from 5-liter V8 to 3 liter 6-cylinder BMW, then from 3-liter Beemer to 2-liter beemer 320i. In the end to drive bigger displacement than 2-liters is considered bad taste.

Hydrogen is not primary energy, it requires energy to be made. The car industry has buried this turkey called hydrogen. The hydrogen humbug we read in papers today is a-all-laugh-together-joke; pretty much the way we are today laughing at flat earth. Car industry desperately trying to push for electric cars. But the public isn't that enthusiastic; sort of no-hurry. Trains are back.

All green pipe dreams gone. The medias (finally) admit that solar power needs vast areas. So for wind power, too. The greens themselves don't want to discuss the topic. Heatwells and heat pumps built everywhere if possible; oil heating outlawed.

Everyone watches the weekly Fusion News. :roll: A fenomena from from 50's is back: you don't have ask whether your pal has seen it - because he has.

Wrapup: a dull, endless 70's recession.
User avatar
Sprengtporten
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Around Scandinavia

Unread postby buster » Fri 13 Aug 2004, 06:44:10

Cheer up. Changing world technologies claims they're now producing 100 to 200 barrels of oil (crude #4 equivalent) each day from turkey parts.


http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.php?id=91047
http://www.openspeech.org - please visit and post!
buster
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby azreal60 » Fri 13 Aug 2004, 10:20:48

Yes, they have been doing that for a while now. Sounds great till u realize that allows 200 american s to drive for a month. What about the other some 200 million ? :lol:
Azreal60
azreal60
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat 26 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Madison,Wisconsin

Unread postby Leanan » Fri 13 Aug 2004, 10:24:44

Not only that, but turkey parts are expensive. These plants are only economical because we raise turkeys for other reasons. We can't easily scale up.

Dollars to donuts, these plants actually operate at an energy loss, if you take into account the amount of energy it takes to raise the turkeys.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby OilBurner » Fri 13 Aug 2004, 10:26:25

azreal60 wrote: Sounds great till u realize that allows 200 american s to drive for a month. What about the other some 200 million ?


Carpooling? :D
Burning the midnight oil, whilst I still can.
User avatar
OilBurner
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu 03 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby lotrfan55345 » Fri 13 Aug 2004, 17:45:47

I would think ASPO would have the most current data, as the prediction was made in April, unlike some other previous ones.
lotrfan55345
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Minneapolis / Pittsburgh

Unread postby buster » Sat 14 Aug 2004, 01:35:31

A couple of points.

The Carthage, Missouri plant went online in May, and word at the time was, within a couple of months they'd be producing 500 barrels a day.

It's August, and there hasn't been any kind of press release to brag about their productivity, so I suspect there's more snags in the technology than they let on in the gosh-wow slick magazine articles.

If you put the phrase "200 tons of turkey waste" into Google, you will find a whole bunch of sites claiming that the plant is turning that much crap into oil; but one site says 500 barrels, another 450 barrels, and a third says 600 barrels! Usually sites aren't that bad at copying one another so I suspect CWT hasn't got their story straight yet.

One of their websites says the factory won't reach full production capacity until the second half of 2004.

I haven't got any confirmation on this but heres a guy claiming that the second plant is planned for Colorado.

In terms of agro-waste, you're right it can't replace our oil needs. Even if TCP is used for all sewage treatment and all agrowaste, we still come up short. That doesn't mean this sort of thing won't be good to help a "soft landing," or to provide something other than natural gas to power those hydrogen cells.

National Geographic did a blurb on CWT and claimed that the US has 4 billion tons of agrowaste a year, that represents more than a drop in the bucket; the same article indicates that, once a few plants are in production, the cost to CWT will be $10 per barrel. They also say that the process used by CWT differs from depolymerization techniques that have been around since the 80s -- it's more energy efficient, which is why it's now practical for a large scale project. Unless someone can verify that their techniques don't differ, I don't think we can be sure that it would have the exact same returns as the 1999 swine manure deal.

I agree that any holes that can be poked in this stuff should definitely be poked. However, let's not fall into a cultish orthodoxy, or encourage abandoning ideas that may actually reduce the pain.
http://www.openspeech.org - please visit and post!
buster
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Leanan » Sat 14 Aug 2004, 10:22:37

Discover had an article last year about the turkey-parts plant, called "Anything Into Oil." It got a tremendous response - so much so, that they planned a follow-up article for May or June of this year. But the plant wasn't running yet. Unexpected technical snags.

However, they did confirm that another plant is planned for Colorado. I believe that one is supposed to run off cow parts. It got a huge boost after Mad Cow disease was found in the U.S. last winter. The prions that cause Mad Cow are not affected by cooking, so dealing with the corpses of infected or possibly infected cows is a real problem. But the process that turns "anything into oil" does denature prions, so making oil out of mad cows is perfectly safe.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby buster » Sat 14 Aug 2004, 14:11:55

mmm...too bad "Big Daddy" Roth (creator of "Rat Phink") is gone, I would like to see him draw a mad-cow mobile.
http://www.openspeech.org - please visit and post!
buster
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Specop_007 » Sun 15 Aug 2004, 10:19:03

Heres my simple and small minded argument.
I have car insurance, because I MIGHT get into an accident.
I have health insurance, because I MIGHT get sick.
I have dental, because my teeth MIGHT need work.

I have life insurance, because I WILL die.
I am planning for Post Peak and learning survival skills, because we WILL run out of oil.

I dont give a damn if its tomorrow or 900 years from now. And I dont car if I get into a car wreck tomorrow or 900 years from now. I' take precautions against both, and as such, am not going to worry about it.

Think of preparing for Post Peak and a bad collapse as insurance, not a sign of a Doomsdayer trying to scare the world. :)
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Devil » Sun 15 Aug 2004, 11:28:15

Specop_007 wrote:Heres my simple and small minded argument.
I have car insurance, because I MIGHT get into an accident.
I have health insurance, because I MIGHT get sick.
I have dental, because my teeth MIGHT need work.

I have life insurance, because I WILL die.
I am planning for Post Peak and learning survival skills, because we WILL run out of oil.

I dont give a damn if its tomorrow or 900 years from now. And I dont car if I get into a car wreck tomorrow or 900 years from now. I' take precautions against both, and as such, am not going to worry about it.

Think of preparing for Post Peak and a bad collapse as insurance, not a sign of a Doomsdayer trying to scare the world. :)


Well, what do you recommend I do.

I have car insurance only because it is mandatory and have never been in an accident of any consequence in >50 years behind the wheel
I have no health insurance because it's a scam and cheaper if I pay my own bills (and I'm 72, have cancer, wear a pacemaker and have had 2 strokes, AND it's still cheaper)
I have no dental insurance for the same reasons
I have no life insurance, because it's a scam and it is cheaper to manage my own finances.
So ??????

Should I take out insurance against oil running out, knowing that the premiums I'll pay will be to allow some get-rich-quick mogul to run around in a gas-guzzling BMW 5 or 7 class or a Mercedes 600, while I have a little Honda runabout.
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Unread postby Specop_007 » Sun 15 Aug 2004, 22:16:23

Devil wrote:{removed embedded quote - see above for last text - OilBurner}


Then do nothing

I have insurance cause I drive a $40,000+ car. I dont want to cover expenses out of pocket for some jackass who hits me.
Health care provided by employer, but I wouldnt be without it anyways. Not cost effective, especially if you end up in the hospital for a few days. Of course, in your situation it might be cheaper due to you pre existing conditions jacking up the price although frankly I think your full of shit. Cancer is NOT a cheap disease to have.
Dental, same deal for me, provided by employer.

So all insurance is a scam eh? Well, you live in your world, I'll live in mine.
User avatar
Specop_007
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby buster » Tue 17 Aug 2004, 02:58:03

I hate to keep bringing this thread back on topic...it's not as if turning garbage into oil might be <i>helpful</i> or <i>relevant</i> or anything.

But I found a local news story in the Carthage paper with two interesting bits of news about thermal depolymerization:

1. The plant has been brought up to 100% capacity.

2. It stinks. Bad. Like burning hair.

http://www.carthagepress.com/articles/2 ... /news3.txt
http://www.openspeech.org - please visit and post!
buster
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby OilBurner » Tue 17 Aug 2004, 06:28:33

buster wrote:2. It stinks. Bad. Like burning hair.


That doesn't sound too good. Don't these kind of powerful smells suggest strong chemicals (possibly carcinogens) being released into the local environment?

Devil - you seem to know everything about everything (I mean that in a nice way!), what's your take on that?
Burning the midnight oil, whilst I still can.
User avatar
OilBurner
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu 03 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby Devil » Tue 17 Aug 2004, 06:44:48

OilBurner wrote:
buster wrote:2. It stinks. Bad. Like burning hair.

Devil - you seem to know everything about everything (I mean that in a nice way!), what's your take on that?


I possibly have longer experience than most here: have been a polyvalent engineer for 53 years!!! My take? Can't say. If there are smells, it certainly means that there are chemical emissions, but whether they are dangerous or not is impossible to say without a detailed analysis. However, the precautionary principle says keep to the windward, rather than the leeward, side of the plant :)
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Unread postby OilBurner » Tue 17 Aug 2004, 06:55:54

Unless of course you like the burnt hair smell? :twisted:

Makes me wonder though, just how much testing and thought goes into these things before they are built?
They already messed up with this plant with the smell, who's to say the output isn't dangerous too?
Burning the midnight oil, whilst I still can.
User avatar
OilBurner
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu 03 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby Leanan » Tue 17 Aug 2004, 09:10:33

It's probably burning feathers from all those turkeys. :P
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

tdp

Unread postby pup55 » Tue 17 Aug 2004, 10:51:18

a. I tried to tell you this thing would stink.

b. The company's own website says that the process inputs 126 mmbtu/hr of energy, and only gets out 107 mmbtu/hr out the other side. It's kind of an interesting trick to turn organic waste into oil, but it's an energy sink, that is more suited to getting rid of the organic waste rather than production of energy.

c. If they could get it dry, they'd be better off just trying to burn the stuff
directly to power a generator or something, rather than try to convert it to oil. Of course, that would seriously stink.

http://www.changingworldtech.com/pdf/Ge ... 3_3_04.pdf
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 200 guests