|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hiua25
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The US Geological society forcasts that there is enough oil for 50 to 100 more years at current levels, (although this estimate has been challenged as being optimistic) a lot more that EFL trainer�s figure which I reckon (s)he simply plucked out of thin air. Someone else on this thread I think mentioned 20 years before peak oil production occurs which not really likely also.
Not only that but peak oil theory isn�t even about oil running out at all, it�s specifically about when production will begin to decline and alternative energy sources and processes need to be developed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Page 2:
| Quote: |
| Oh, come on! What do you know about peak oil? 20 years? No! That's when it is expected, for all intents and purposes, to RUN OUT. |
Page 4:
| Quote: |
| Time to total depletion with no rise in demand: 132 years. |
Page 3:
| Quote: |
| For the umpteenth time: NO. Peak Oil, if it is happening, is thought to be happening NOW. |
Page 4:
| Quote: |
| Secondly, if we have badly affected the Earth's ecology burning up only 1 trillion barrels of oil so far (Exxon), what the hell will the effects of burning 3 trillion more be? |
So, we've used a trillion, but have 3 trillion left? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Peak Oil Panic
Is the planet running out of gas? If it is, what should the Bush administration do about it?
Ronald Bailey | May 2006 Print Edition
The Princeton geologist Ken Deffeyes warns that the imminent peak of global oil production will result in �war, famine, pestilence and death.� Deffeyes, author of 2001�s Hubbert�s Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage and 2005�s Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert�s Peak, predicted that the peak of global oil production would occur this past Thanksgiving.
Deffeyes isn�t alone. The Houston investment banker Matthew Simmons claims in his 2005 book Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy that the Saudis are lying about the size of their reserves and that they are really running on empty; last September he announced that �we could be looking at $10-a-gallon gas this winter.� Colin Campbell, a former petroleum geologist who is now a trustee of the U.K.-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, warned way back in 2002 that we were headed for peak oil production, and that this would lead to �war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens.� In his 2004 book Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil, the Caltech physicist David Goodstein wrote that the peak of world production is imminent and that �we can, all too easily, envision a dying civilization, the landscape littered with the rusting hulks of SUVs.� Jim Motavalli, editor of the environmentalist magazine E, writes in the January/February 2006 issue, �It is impossible to escape the conclusion that we�re steaming full speed ahead into a train wreck of monumental proportions.�
And James Schlesinger, the country�s first secretary of energy, declared in the Winter 2005�06 issue of the neoconservative foreign policy journal The National Interest that �a growing consensus accepts that the peak is not that far off.� He added, �The inability readily to expand the supply of oil, given rising demand, will in the future impose a severe economic shock.�
Even some traditionally calm voices are starting to sound panicky. In March 2005, the New York investment bank Goldman Sachs issued a report suggesting that oil prices would experience a �super spike� in 2006, reaching up to $105 per barrel. ChevronTexaco�s willyoujoinus.com campaign, featuring a series of full-page newspaper ads that urge Americans to conserve energy, flatly declares, �The era of easy oil is over.�
Such forecasts have been bolstered by a steep rise in oil prices over the last three years, going from $18 a barrel in 2002 to $70 last fall. If the price of something goes up, after all, that means it�s becoming scarcer.
The good news is that the peak oil doomsters are probably wrong that world oil production is about to decline forever. Most analysts believe that world petroleum supplies will meet projected demand at reasonable prices for at least another generation. The bad news is that much of the world�s oil reserves are in the custody of unstable and sometimes hostile regimes. But the oil producing nations would be the ultimate losers if they provoked an �oil crisis,� since that would spur industrialized countries to cut back on imports and develop alternative energy technologies.
Apocalypse Yesterday
Predictions of imminent catastrophic depletion are almost as old as the oil industry. An 1855 advertisement for Kier�s Rock Oil, a patent medicine whose key ingredient was petroleum bubbling up from salt wells near Pittsburgh, urged customers to buy soon before �this wonderful product is depleted from Nature�s laboratory.� The ad appeared four years before Pennsylvania�s first oil well was drilled. In 1919 David White of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) predicted that world oil production would peak in nine years. And in 1943 the Standard Oil geologist Wallace Pratt calculated that the world would ultimately produce 600 billion barrels of oil. (In fact, more than 1 trillion barrels of oil had been pumped by 2006.)
During the 1970s, the Club of Rome report The Limits to Growth projected that, assuming consumption remained flat, all known oil reserves would be entirely consumed in just 31 years. With exponential growth in consumption, it added, all the known oil reserves would be consumed in 20 years. These dour predictions gained credibility when the Arab oil crisis of 1973 quadrupled prices from $3 to $12 per barrel (from $16 to $48 in 2006 dollars) and when the Iranian oil crisis more than doubled oil prices from $14 per barrel in 1978 to $35 per barrel by 1981 (from $45 to $98 in 2006 dollars).
In response, the federal government imposed price controls on oil and gas in the 1970s and established fuel economy standards to encourage the sale of more efficient automobiles. The sense of doom did not dissolve. In 1979 Energy Secretary Schlesinger proclaimed, �The energy future is bleak and is likely to grow bleaker in the decade ahead.� The Global 2000 Report to President Carter, issued in 1980, predicted that the price of oil would rise by 50 percent, reaching $100 per barrel by 2000.
The prophets of oily doom are opposed by preachers of energy abundance. Chief among the latter is the energy economist Michael Lynch, president of the Massachusetts-based Global Petroleum Service consultancy. �Colin Campbell has the worst forecasting record on oil supply,� says Lynch, �and that�s saying a lot.� He points out that in a 1989 article for the journal Noroil, Campbell claimed the peak of world oil production had already passed and incorrectly predicted that oil would soon cost $30 to $50 a barrel. As for Matthew Simmons, Lynch dismisses him with a sneer: �Petroleum engineers know a lot more about petroleum engineering than a Harvard MBA.�
One petroleum engineer� Michael Economides of the University of Houston�calls peak oil predictions �the figments of the imaginations of born-again pessimist geologists.� Like Lynch, Economides, who worked in Russia to boost that country�s oil production in the last decade, rejects Simmons� analysis. Saudi Arabia, which currently produces about 10 million barrels of oil a day, �is underproducing every one of their wells,� he claims. �I can produce 20 million barrels of oil in Saudi Arabia.�
The Tank Is Still More Than Half Full
So who�s right? Fortunately, it looks like humanity is at least a generation away from peak oil production. Unfortunately, there could be another �oil crisis� any day now.
The world consumes about 87 million barrels of oil per day, or nearly 30 billion barrels of oil per year. How much oil is left? It�s hard to be sure. Proven oil reserves�i.e., oil that is recoverable under current economic and operating conditions�are estimated to be 1.1 trillion barrels by the industry journal World Oil, 1.2 trillion by the oil company BP, and 1.3 trillion by the Oil and Gas Journal. In March 2005 the private U.K.-based energy consultancy IHS Energy estimated that the world�s remaining recoverable reserves, excluding unconventional sources such as heavy oil or tar sands, are between 1.3 trillion and 2.4 trillion barrels.
But are proven reserves all that�s left? Several analyses put ultimate reserves at much higher levels. For example, the USGS undertook a comprehensive analysis of world oil reserves in 2000. It calculated that the total world endowment of recoverable oil is 3 trillion barrels. (Its figure is higher because it includes estimates for undiscovered resources and projected increases in already producing fields.) In addition, the total world endowment of natural gas is equivalent to 2.6 trillion barrels of oil, plus 330 billion barrels of natural gas liquids such as propane and butane. The USGS figures that the total world endowment of conventional oil resources is equivalent to about 5.9 trillion barrels of oil. Proven reserves of oil, gas, and natural gas liquids are equivalent to 2 trillion barrels of oil. The USGS calculates that humanity has already consumed about 1 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, which means 82 percent of the world�s endowment of oil and gas resources remains to be used.
In its 2005 Energy Outlook, ExxonMobil estimates �global conventional oil resources total 3.2 trillion barrels�with non-conventional �frontier� resources such as heavy oil bringing that total to over 4 trillion barrels.� In November 2005, the International Energy Agency, an organization created in 1974 by 26 industrialized countries to assess global energy issues, released its annual World Energy Outlook report, which accepted the USGS numbers and concluded that �the world�s energy resources are adequate to meet projected growth in energy demand� until at least 2030. The report predicted that oil production would grow from the 2004 level of 82 million barrels a day to 115 million barrels a day and that any �peak� would occur after 2030. It suggested that world oil prices will decline to around $35 per barrel (in 2004 dollars) by 2010 and eventually rise to $39 per barrel by 2030. At the Montreal Climate Change Conference in December, Claude Mandil, head of the International Energy Agency, declared: �We don�t share the tenets of the peak oil theory. We feel that they underestimate technological developments. For many decades to come there is no geological problem.�
Probably the most respected private oil consultancy in the world is Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) in Boston. On December 7, 2005, CERA senior consultant Robert W. Esser testified at a House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee hearing on the peak oil theory. �CERA�s belief is that the world is not running out of oil imminently or in the near to medium term,� Esser said. �Indeed, CERA projects that world oil production capacity has the potential to rise from 87 million barrels per day [mbd] in 2005 to as much as 108 mbd by 2015.�We see no evidence to suggest a peak before 2020, nor do we see a transparent and technically sound analysis from another source that justifies belief in an imminent peak.� Instead of a sharp peak followed by a production decline, CERA�s analysts foresee an �undulating plateau� in which global oil production remains more or less steady. �It will be a number of decades into this century before we get to an inflection point that will herald the arrival of the undulating plateau,� said Esser.
The Real Oil Crisis
Simmons has been wrong so far: Gasoline does not cost $10 a gallon. Oil prices hovered between $55 and $65 per barrel in late 2005 and early 2006, down from $70 in September 2005. The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes gasoline prices will remain below $3 per gallon in 2006.
What about the future? The International Energy Agency calculates that $3 trillion must be invested in oil production and refining facilities during the next 25 years to meet world demand in 2030. In principle that target could easily be met, since producing 1 trillion barrels at $30 per barrel yields $30 trillion in income over 25 years.
The problem is that the vast majority of the world�s remaining oil reserves are not possessed by private enterprises. Seventy-seven percent of known reserves belong to government-owned companies. That means oil will be produced with all the efficiency associated with central planning. Michael Economides estimates, for example, that it will take $4 billion in investment to keep Venezuela�s oil production at current levels. Yet that country�s Castro-wannabe president, Hugo Chavez, is investing just half that.
If ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, or other private companies actually owned the reserves, the world would be in a much more secure position with regard to oil production. Instead, we are subject to the whims of figures like Chavez, Russia�s Vladimir Putin, and Iran�s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and must worry about the doubtful stability of their personalities and regimes. (To be sure, even a private reserve under such a regime would face the constant threat of nationalization or other interference.) In the mid-1990s, the world had more than 10 million barrels per day of spare production capacity. That figure has fallen to between 1 and 2 million barrels, which means that any significant disruption in supplies can cause prices to soar.
Despite the recent jump in oil prices, the world�s economy has not slowed down. Why not? Goldman Sachs notes that oil is less important than it was a generation ago.
As the oil crisis of the 1970s demonstrated, while the demand for oil is inelastic in the short run, consumers do eventually adjust to higher prices. U.S. oil consumption declined by 13 percent between 1973 and 1983. According to Frederick Cedoz, vice president of the D.C.-based energy and political risk consulting group Global Water and Energy Strategy Team, �We get three times more GDP out of a barrel of oil than we did in the 1970s.�
Unfortunately, you don�t have to go to Iran, Russia, or Venezuela to find energy militants. We have some homegrown ones right here in America, and they think the world is already in the opening stages of a global energy war. Last July, the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., assembled some of the scariest American oil war hawks for a program called �The Coming Energy Wars: A 21st Century Time Bomb?�
Instead of preparing for an energy war, the best policy is to let markets have free rein. Even if, say, the Iranians make the political decision to disrupt the flow of oil to world markets, those markets left to themselves will eventually discipline them. The temporarily higher prices will encourage more exploration and technological advances, which will bring energy prices back down. On the day of his inauguration in 1981, President Ronald Reagan lifted oil price controls. Five years later oil prices fell below $10 a barrel.
One day, the oil age will end. As with all resources, there is ultimately a finite supply of oil. So it is not yet clear how the world will power itself for the bulk of the coming century. But we have at least another three decades to find alternatives to petroleum. �Trusting markets is the only way we can assure energy abundance in the future,� notes the University of Houston�s Economides. �It�s also the only way that we will ever transition to something other than oil and gas.� |
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36645.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
hiua25,
You are argumentative, nothing more. You ignore clearly stated points or simply have't read the full thread.
Nowhere Man,
You also have not read the full thread.
You both should be embarrassed.
1. I have never stated I support the idea of peak oil. I have stated the opposite, however.
2. There are many people speaking about PO all over the news and the internet. Thus, different ideas and numbers will come from various palces. None of them are mine. All the info stated is in the links. You have not read/watched them.
You should both be ashamed.
Regarding peak oil, you dimwit #25, I clearly defined it earlier in the thread and have spoken about it correctly. Now, why don't you deal with the subject I entered the thread on: the OP and another early poster on page one were taking a very narrow and simplistic view on the topic. That is the issue I raised, not the issue of PO itself.
However, since you wish to argue without following links or doing any research of your own, I will inform you:
The theory of peak oil is as stated previously, and is basically nothing more than the law of supply and demand. Thus, the only question is, have we hit it. That is the entirety of the basic issue: are we there yet or not?
Those who interpret the data to say we are coming to PO have varying timelines. IF the most pessimistic are correct, we are at PO now. It is that simple and has been stated repeatedly on this thread.
The Chairman, or whatever, of Exxon claims we actually have 3 or 4 trillion barrels of oil left, in all forms. He states we have used 1 trillion in all of human existence. The US department of Energy states world daily use as around 83 million a day. Do the math. It leaves a very short time to depletion of all known and assumed reserves. It also includes all the alternative oils.
Now, the nexus between GW and PO is obvious. Those saying it isn't are being argumentative, at best.
1. Changing to new fuels costs money. For the producers and the consumers. If fuel costs to consumers are hitting 3 or more times their normal levels, the effects on the economy are obvious ad people's ability to afford switching evaporates in many, many cases.
1b. This also applies to entire nations that cannot afford the infrastructure switch if PO and GW are occurring at the same time.
2. If we do continue production, and at the extreme profit levels you will see you will see oil companies simultaneously ramping up new technology and gauging on oil. They wll cause the transition period to be extended as long as possible, further depleting consumers' bank accounts.
2b. This will exacerbate global warming. This is obvious.
3. Oil companies will, again assuming PO is really here now, actually first try to maintain oil prices to prevent losing market to new technologies.
3b. This will exacerbate GW.
4. If PO is here (and let's not forget that it is, in fact, here for about half the world's leading oil producers), then higher prices and reductions in supply will cause an increase in the use of coal. This will greatly exacerbate GW.
5 GW IS here. Sea levels are rising. Ecologies are changing. People are being displaced. Watersheds are being lost. Etc.
5a. Given that GW is here, we must reduce emissions yesterday. Period. A slow drop in oil production and price rise may well result in a (relatively) orderly transition to alternative fuels. However, the entire argument about PO is that it is happening now. (Try not to forget this means the PRICES will be risng long before real supply becomes an issue. That eats up resources needed to develop alternatives and build infrastructure. It also eats up resources needed to pay for the EFFECTS of GW. Remember this is a GLOBAL issue...) That will equal increased emissions before alternatives can be ramped up.
5b. Ramping up ANY alternatives on a global scale will be impossible without a lot of disruption, and, in the extreme, massive disruption.
5c. The costs of GW itself, were conditions to magically stabilize now in terms of emissions, is still going to be a hefty bill. If there is serious ice melt, the issue will be massive. Even in the next 20 years disruption would become a serious issue for certain areas. Florida's highest point is only 300 ft. high, for example.
There's more, but since I have told you all this already, well.... enough is enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Page 5:
| Quote: |
| 1. I have never stated I support the idea of peak oil. I have stated the opposite, however. |
Page 1:
| Quote: |
Ah, and, we don't have 20 or 30 more years of current, let alone increased, fossil fuel consumption available to us.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| You are making remarks about their personality here. And you have been calling them liars throughout this thread |
(1) Urby, you're even more stupid than I realized:
(2) Lying/being stupid = style.  
(3) Lying/being stupid = personality.
(4) Par for the course: NOTHING on-topic. |
(numbers are mine)
1. Who is Urby....your pet name for yourself? In that case I would have to agree with this statement.
2. Don't be so hard on yourself...I'd just say stupid, not that you are lying.
3. Again I think you're being unduly harsh with regards to your personality.
4. Yes, the above quote has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| You are making remarks about their personality here. And you have been calling them liars throughout this thread |
(1) Urby, you're even more stupid than I realized:
(2) Lying/being stupid = style.
(3) Lying/being stupid = personality.
(4) Par for the course: NOTHING on-topic. |
(numbers are mine)
1. Who is Urby....your pet name for yourself? In that case I would have to agree with this statement.
2. Don't be so hard on yourself...I'd just say stupid, not that you are lying.
3. Again I think you're being unduly harsh with regards to your personality.
4. Yes, the above quote has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. |
Now let's look at numbers 2 and 3
Lying and being stupid can certainly be a style(s) of certain people.
Also lying can certainly be a personality trait. So can being/acting stupid. Some people have carved out their own little niche on Dave's with regard to that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Page 5:
| Quote: |
| 1. I have never stated I support the idea of peak oil. I have stated the opposite, however. |
Page 1:
| Quote: |
Ah, and, we don't have 20 or 30 more years of current, let alone increased, fossil fuel consumption available to us.
|
|
What's your point? I have never stated I believe PO is a current phenomenon.
The second point is also accurate. We do not. I said CONSUMPTION, not oil.
Comprehension. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| You are making remarks about their personality here. And you have been calling them liars throughout this thread |
(1) Urby, you're even more stupid than I realized:
(2) Lying/being stupid = style.
(3) Lying/being stupid = personality.
(4) Par for the course: NOTHING on-topic. |
(numbers are mine)
1. Who is Urby....your pet name for yourself? In that case I would have to agree with this statement.
2. Don't be so hard on yourself...I'd just say stupid, not that you are lying.
3. Again I think you're being unduly harsh with regards to your personality.
4. Yes, the above quote has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. |
Now let's look at numbers 2 and 3
Lying and being stupid can certainly be a style(s) of certain people.
Also lying can certainly be a personality trait. So can being/acting stupid. Some people have carved out their own little niche on Dave's with regard to that. |
Lying is a behavior. Being untrustworthy is a personaliity trait. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
For the guy who laughed at the mention of Chaos in this discussion.
Chaos and Climate |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:23 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
The second point is also accurate. We do not. I said CONSUMPTION, not oil.
|
What do you mean by consumption? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
The second point is also accurate. We do not. I said CONSUMPTION, not oil.
|
What do you mean by consumption? |
Play games with someone else. If you don't understand consumption, buy a dictionary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:12 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Consumption:
| Quote: |
# S: (n) consumption, ingestion, intake, uptake (the process of taking food into the body through the mouth (as by eating))
# S: (n) pulmonary tuberculosis, consumption, phthisis, wasting disease, white plague (involving the lungs with progressive wasting of the body)
# S: (n) consumption, economic consumption, usance, use, use of goods and services ((economics) the utilization of economic goods to satisfy needs or in manufacturing) "the consumption of energy has increased steadily"
# S: (n) consumption, using up, expenditure (the act of consuming something) |
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=consumption
I take it you mean definition #3/#4
| Quote: |
| Fossil Fuel: Oil, coal and natural gas that originates from decayed plants and animals. |
http://www.stanford.edu/group/Power-Systems/electrical_technical_glossary.htm
Page 1:
| Quote: |
| Ah, and, we don't have 20 or 30 more years of current, let alone increased, fossil fuel consumption available to us. |
Page 5:
| Quote: |
| I said CONSUMPTION, not oil. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You're getting closer. Context is everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hiua25
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You challenged us to �do the math�, well here we go.
You said that the world consumes 85 million barrels a day, and that there are only about 3 or 4 trillion barrels worth of recoverable oil remaining.
85,000,000 (85 million) times 365 equals 31,025,000,000. So every year the world consumes about 31 billion barrels of oil. 3, 000,000,000,000 (3 trillion) divided by 31, 025,000,000 equals 96.69621 or 96 more years of oil.
That�s almost a century more oil. Enough to take us into the 22nd century. Yes demand is rising, but an estimate of 3 to 4 trillion barrels suggests more than the conservative figure I used, in other words there will be enough oil for the next century.
Why didn�t you do the math yourself before you posted EFL trainer?
Also if you�d bothered to read the links put up by the o.p (especially the newsweek article) you would have found all this out yourself.
96 years is plenty of time to develop and improve new energy technologies. Nuclear power, ethanol based engines etc etc. As the price of oil increases and becomes unaffordable so new technologies will become more viable.
And to top it all off your link between peak oil and global warming was contrived I felt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
