Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 93
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pulser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,779

    Oil drilling in Soapstone Natural Area

    This really pisses me off. I love it up there and I go up there to get away from civilization.

    Drilling out a plan: Oil boom on the horizon worries many | The Coloradoan | coloradoan.com

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Zeitlupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    85
    Yes, it is quite a threat to the peaceful experience that we are accustomed to.

  3. #3
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,110
    Golly jee whiz....Who would figure that that companies want to drill for oil, keeping up with demand, in places where it hasn't been sucked dry?

    ....I say if you don't like it, then I hope you ride your bike everywhere then---especially TO the soapstone trailhead. It would be kinda hypocritical to drive all that distance for recreation and then complain about oil drilling.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,373
    Oil and Gas own this state, so do not expect any entity to be able to stop the O&G industry from drilling whenever and wherever they own the mineral rights, which is most of the state.

    How completely this state is owned is beyond belief. Bill Owens was essentially inserted into the Governor's job by the Oil and Gas industry (he was the former Executive Director of the Colorado Petroleum Association and Executive Vice President of the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association). Hickenlooper is a geologist and has shown himself to be a total apologist for the oil and gas industry. The measure passed last week to "require" drillers to disclose the chemicals in their fracking fluids has a loophole a mile wide that allows them to declare a fracking fluid to be a "trade secret". What a crock of s**t.

    I'm sure some dick with connections to the oil industry is going to jump me now with the same tired rhetoric about "you drive your car don't you" blah, blah, blah. Yes, I do, and I drive what I drive because no one in government has the balls to stand up and tell the truth about our energy future, which is that we are so screwed that no one DARE tell the truth. The truth is this: we use 18-19 million barrels of oil per day in this country, and at the very peak of our production, when Texas and OK were going gangbusters, we didn't even pump 10 million per day from the US. We now produce 6-7, and even with all the technology and billions in investment, that number as barely moved the past few years. We have one choice, and that is to actually reduce our consumption, and there is only one way to do that, and that is to have the gonads to look in the mirror and recognize that we either bite the bullet now, or we let it blow our heads off in twenty years when OPEC decides to screw us with another embargo. The price of oil tripled in the early 70's the last time that happened, but then we only imported 35% of our needs, and if you don't think our economy would completely disintegrate with $300 a barrel oil this time, you are clueless.

    Our friend and Republican punching bag Al Gore suggested long ago and far away that we have a 50 cent a gallon gas tax to try to spur us into some kind of respect for our most important finite resource, and he was castigated and ridiculed into oblivion because that would have made the price of gasoline a completely unacceptable $1.75 per gallon! If we had actually taken that step, we might by now have had an infrastructure that would allow us to tell the Saudis and the others that hate us to go f**ck themselves. Instead, we still send EVERY president to Saudi Arabia early in their term to grovel before their King and swear we will keep their interests at heart in everything we do, so help us Allah.

    So keep on driving that Powersmoke, and we'll keep sending the thumper trucks across our most fragile landscapes (take a look around Moab out by Sovereign or up by Gemini sometime. What looks like roads crisscrossing out there are the scars left by oil exploration thumpers about ten years ago.) And we'll keep sacrificing 5 acres out of every 40 for drilling pads and roads to sink wells and pump "trade secrets" into the ground, until we have absolutely no oil or gas left, and we can just bend over and let those who conserved f**ck us in the ass for the rest of our time on earth.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2wheelsnotfour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,849
    Here we go. Just for fun, look up Al Gore's carbon foot print from his house compared to the average American house hold and how he gets rich with carbon credits. This week Michelle couldn't be bothered to wait 4 hours to leave for vacation with Barrack so she left in a separate aero-entourage necessitating twice the number of aircraft flying to Hawaii and twice the fossil fuel usage.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pulser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,779
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman View Post
    It would be kinda hypocritical to drive all that distance for recreation and then complain about oil drilling.
    Not when I spend the rest of the week conserving. And not when I spend every day making wind turbine blades so you and every one els in this country can have a future.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2wheelsnotfour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,849
    Alternative energy is fine and dandy but its not yet economical enough to replace fossil fuels. That's why subsidies are necessary for alternative energy to compete. Its good and necessary that we develop alternative energy, however, if America continues to purposely curtail its own fossil fuel production, high energy costs will continue to be a drag on our standard of living and economy. In my opinion a more reasonable balance is in order. I get the impression many Americans are beginning to realize this and there will be changes in 2012.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BobGolden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    435
    Quick test: Which industry gets ten times the subsidies of renewables??

  9. #9
    Stiff yet compliant
    Reputation: Moustache rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,895
    If only a digital wind turbine could be created and installed within the front range mtbr forum.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rcjonessnp175's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    500
    Get used to it, dont like it move to some other 3rd world country, oh thats right we werent in iraq for oil, we were actually freeing the oppressed. Its about time this country starts making sacrifices for its extravaganzas. New world is coming

  11. #11
    High Desert MTBer
    Reputation: rockerc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,850
    I find it ironic that people berate Gore for espousing capitalistic principles, putting his money into green initiatives, and making a profit! I wonder if an argument could be made for his promotion of greener principles as an offset against his "massively increased carbon footprint"?

    A new world is coming, that part is correct, get ready!
    It's all Here. Now.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pau11y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,738
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    Oil and Gas own this state, so do not expect any entity to be able to stop the O&G industry from drilling whenever and wherever they own the mineral rights, which is most of the state.

    How completely this state is owned is beyond belief. Bill Owens was essentially inserted into the Governor's job by the Oil and Gas industry (he was the former Executive Director of the Colorado Petroleum Association and Executive Vice President of the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association). Hickenlooper is a geologist and has shown himself to be a total apologist for the oil and gas industry. The measure passed last week to "require" drillers to disclose the chemicals in their fracking fluids has a loophole a mile wide that allows them to declare a fracking fluid to be a "trade secret". What a crock of s**t.

    I'm sure some dick with connections to the oil industry is going to jump me now with the same tired rhetoric about "you drive your car don't you" blah, blah, blah. Yes, I do, and I drive what I drive because no one in government has the balls to stand up and tell the truth about our energy future, which is that we are so screwed that no one DARE tell the truth. The truth is this: we use 18-19 million barrels of oil per day in this country, and at the very peak of our production, when Texas and OK were going gangbusters, we didn't even pump 10 million per day from the US. We now produce 6-7, and even with all the technology and billions in investment, that number as barely moved the past few years. We have one choice, and that is to actually reduce our consumption, and there is only one way to do that, and that is to have the gonads to look in the mirror and recognize that we either bite the bullet now, or we let it blow our heads off in twenty years when OPEC decides to screw us with another embargo. The price of oil tripled in the early 70's the last time that happened, but then we only imported 35% of our needs, and if you don't think our economy would completely disintegrate with $300 a barrel oil this time, you are clueless.

    Our friend and Republican punching bag Al Gore suggested long ago and far away that we have a 50 cent a gallon gas tax to try to spur us into some kind of respect for our most important finite resource, and he was castigated and ridiculed into oblivion because that would have made the price of gasoline a completely unacceptable $1.75 per gallon! If we had actually taken that step, we might by now have had an infrastructure that would allow us to tell the Saudis and the others that hate us to go f**ck themselves. Instead, we still send EVERY president to Saudi Arabia early in their term to grovel before their King and swear we will keep their interests at heart in everything we do, so help us Allah.

    So keep on driving that Powersmoke, and we'll keep sending the thumper trucks across our most fragile landscapes (take a look around Moab out by Sovereign or up by Gemini sometime. What looks like roads crisscrossing out there are the scars left by oil exploration thumpers about ten years ago.) And we'll keep sacrificing 5 acres out of every 40 for drilling pads and roads to sink wells and pump "trade secrets" into the ground, until we have absolutely no oil or gas left, and we can just bend over and let those who conserved f**ck us in the ass for the rest of our time on earth.
    Just want to snap some reality into this post. The cost of energy has a direct correlation to the health of a nation's economy, its standard of living, and quality of life. Just going to present some data and let you make the conclusions.

    If you think the Middle East is the problem, below are some actual places where the US gets her oil. An oil embargo now from the Saudis will have an impact, but not nearly as much as you might think. The 300% honkinunit was talking about in the early 70's...the price before was about $4/brl vs ~$12/brl by the end of the 70's (1970's dollar...see plot - sourced from EIA and BEA). I used this plot in a recent paper for my MS work (accuracy only good up to 2010). A better perspective may be the contrast against the Real GDP...it took a hit w/ the 300% oil price jump, but also notice the rebound.

    Something else to keep in perspective is when/if the Saudis artificially inflate the price of oil, it makes recovering from more expensive reserves (Canadian tar sands) viable which will then bring the price back down. Notice the spike in 2008-2009...and the tar sands production is ramping up HUGE right now.





    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Oil drilling in Soapstone Natural Area-real-gdp-vs-crude-oil-price.jpg  

    Naysayers never apologize. Critics go to their grave thinking everyone else is wrong.
    ╭∩╮( º.º )╭∩╮

  13. #13
    rubber side down
    Reputation: russman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    458
    Sort of related. I listened to a speech by a physics professor on Itunes once. He broke down some things that made it easy to understand. Essentially, 1 wind turbine can provide enough electricity for 700 people at the current rate of consumption. Ergo, 5,029,196 people in CO, that would mean we'd need 7200 turbines. US population in 2010 is 308,745,538 we'd need ~441000 turbines. And that's just domestic electricity.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2wheelsnotfour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by rockerc View Post
    I find it ironic that people berate Gore for espousing capitalistic principles, putting his money into green initiatives, and making a profit! I wonder if an argument could be made for his promotion of greener principles as an offset against his "massively increased carbon footprint"?

    A new world is coming, that part is correct, get ready!
    I personally don't have a problem with anyone making a profit, what I have a problem with is the hypocrisy with which Gore makes his profits. Also, there is an obvious conflict of interest. As a result, what he says regarding environmentalism cannot be trusted.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Pau11y View Post
    Just want to snap some reality into this post. The cost of energy has a direct correlation to the health of a nation's economy, its standard of living, and quality of life. Just going to present some data and let you make the conclusions.
    Typical economic analysis done outside of geologic reality.

    Guess what? We are never going to see enough oil from Tar Sands in Canada to replace what we get from other sources, because there is not enough water there to increase production much beyond what it is now, and the environmental destruction is already horrendous. People forget that Canada's oil is FOREIGN OIL, and if the sovereign nation of Canada decides to shut off that spigot, what are we going to do, invade?

    BTW, OPEC is much bigger than Saudi Arabia, and it includes such US friendly countries as Venezuela and Iran. The Saudis do not have the excess capacity to cover Iran if it goes down, and there is no reason a coalition of rouge OPEC countries couldn't bypass the Saudis and vote an embargo themselves.

    A fact that many people don't realize is that while Saudi Arabia is the world's larger exporter of crude oil, they are NOT the world's largest producer. That would be Russia, another wild card in the oil game.

    Economists also conveniently ignore another geologic reality, and that is that every single oil source on earth is finite, and the moment you start pumping that source, you are in depletion mode. One of our largest oil suppliers is Mexico, but they are on track to become a net oil IMPORTER by 2020, because their largest field is nearly finished. The US drills thousands of new wells every year but this barely offsets the depleting production of existing wells. The Saudis are widely believed to be lying about their prospects as well, and absolutely refuse any outside inquiries as to their future prospects. See the great book "Twilight in the Desert" for more on that.

    Yet another factor widely ignored is that production of oil brings prosperity to the country pumping the oil, which also causes their internal consumption to rise. Mexico and Saudi Arabia are great examples. As production in these countries peak, they have to use more and more of their production to satisfy internal demands, which means their exports drop even if their production stays the same.

    Saudi Arabia knows that their production will never rise much, if any, beyond what it is right now, so they are using their oil proceeds to build massive solar farms so that they don't have to use oil to generate electricity.

    And before someone starts chiming in with the oil shale BS, forget it. The oil shale in western Colorado, SW Wyoming and eastern Utah will never be anything more than an emergency military supply, because the amount of water and energy needed to create usable oil from kerogen-infused rock makes that idea a pipe dream that will never come to fruition. It would take the equivalent of a new nuclear power plant for every 100,000 barrels of oil per day we could get out of oil shale. 100,000 barrels is about one-half of one percent of our consumption. Even if we used every available gallon of water in the Colorado river we couldn't produce 1 million barrels per day from shale, even if we were willing to build 10 nuke plants to power the process.

    The bottom line is very clear: we either suck it up and figure out how to prosper on half the oil we use today, or our economy withers under the constant price pressures from competing with China, India, Europe and the rest of the world. The days of being able to import massive amounts of cheap oil from other countries has ended, which is why oil is over $100 a barrel even in the face of lower demand caused by the economic crisis.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,287
    Yeah, those oil wells are going to distract from the HUGE power plant at the entrance.

    But seriously, they should have bought the mineral rights. They assumed that extracting oil would not be economical enough, so they decided not to do it. Whhooopssss....

    Listen, it's a good idea to conserve energy, but don't think you're "saving the earth"......the earth is fine Now, keeping pollutants out of the atmosphere a little more clear or saving energy resources so we will have more in the future? I can get on that bandwagon.

  17. #17
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,538
    Quote Originally Posted by russman View Post
    Sort of related. I listened to a speech by a physics professor on Itunes once. He broke down some things that made it easy to understand. Essentially, 1 wind turbine can provide enough electricity for 700 people at the current rate of consumption. Ergo, 5,029,196 people in CO, that would mean we'd need 7200 turbines. US population in 2010 is 308,745,538 we'd need ~441000 turbines. And that's just domestic electricity.
    And that is only when the wind is blowing at the appropriate speed (not too light, not too heavy).



    Regardless, the important issue is that they manage the extraction process so that it minimizes the impact and they are required to reclaim the sites once they are done.

    They didn't mention how many bbl's of oil they expect to get, what extraction method they would use, nor how long they expect it to take... which makes me very nervous.

  18. #18
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,557
    In actuality generating revenue is what that land was set aside for. It's State School land managed by the SLB that was sold to the communities for recreation (revenue).

    The land was set aside by Congress with the Morrill Act of 1862 or Land Grant College Act. If you go to CSU, then you reap the direct benefits of the revenue generated from these mineral leases.

    "The State Board of Land Commissioners (also known as the State Land Board and the SLB) was established in 1876 to manage more than 3 million acres of land and 4 million acres of mineral rights that the federal government gave to Colorado to generate revenue for public education and some of the state's institutions. "

    (from the article you posted)
    Soapstone Prairie Natural Area - 22,000 acres
    » Meadow Springs Ranch - 26,500 acres

    » Red Mountain Open Space - 15,000 acres

    » Mineral rights owned by the Colorado State Land Board in the area - 15,718 acres

    » Revenue to the board through mineral rights leasing statewide in fiscal year 2008-09 - $67.8 million

    » Revenue from mineral rights leasing to the board statewide in fiscal year 2010-11 - $122.8 million

    The revenue generated from SLB lands is what keeps tuition rates a little lower than say on the east coast or a non-state university.

    Why do you think it's so cheap to go to college in Texas? and why so many out of state kids go to school down there.

    [EDIT]
    This is an interesting report on our energy reserves. Much larger than previously thought, or at least so says this group.
    http://energyforamerica.org/wp-conte...ntory-2011.pdf

    Who knows what to believe any more.
    Last edited by UncleTrail; 12-20-2011 at 09:46 AM.

  19. #19
    Bad Case of the Mondays
    Reputation: Jdub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,001
    Quote Originally Posted by topmounter View Post
    Regardless, the important issue is that they manage the extraction process so that it minimizes the impact and they are required to reclaim the sites once they are done.
    When a company drills a well, they have to put reclamation money into an escrow account that will be used to clean up the site once completed.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Jdub View Post
    When a company drills a well, they have to put reclamation money into an escrow account that will be used to clean up the site once completed.

    Wrong. They have to post a bond, which is a totally different concept. And the bond amounts are ridiculously low.

    There was a recent case of an operator going bankrupt and abandoning wells in Rio Blanco county. Guess who pays for the cleanup?

    706 –Soil Protection, Plugging and Abandonment
    1.
    Old bonding amounts were $5,000 per well and $30,000 or $100,000 blanket bonds.
    2.
    New rules require $10,000 bond per well for wells less than 3000 feet deep and $20,000 bond per well for wells more than 3000 feet deep.
    3.
    Blanket bonds are now $60,000 (less than 100 wells) and $100,000 (more than 100 wells).
    4.
    New bonding levels are required for all wells except domestic wells bonded prior to May 1, 2009.
    5.
    An operator may seek a variance from these rules under appropriate circumstances.
    700

  21. #21
    Bad Case of the Mondays
    Reputation: Jdub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,001
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    Wrong.
    They put money down for clean up before ever drilling, that is the point I'm trying to make. Bond / escrow...whatever.

    I made no comments on the amount.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by pulser View Post
    Not when I spend the rest of the week conserving. And not when I spend every day making wind turbine blades so you and every one els in this country can have a future.
    Where does the power come from to make those turbine blades? Certainly not from the wind turbines they're attached to.

    The options to meet our current and future energy consumption: extract more fossil fuels or mine more uranium. I hate both those realities, but it is what it is.

    Wind and solar energy are products of fossil fuel consumption. Thinking, for a moment, that they are sustainable or economical on such a large scale is ridiculous and delusional. The life span of a solar panel is 30 years (in perfect conditions), the life span of the hardware needed to convert dc to ac is less than half that. Copper wire, glass, and photovoltaics require greater energies to produce than the amount of energy generated by the end product. That is the exact opposite of the definition of sustainable.

    Then again, on a geologic time scale we're but a blip. Even on a evolutionary time scale we're but a blip. Thinking that we make such a large impact is ****-centric. For example, birds have evolved through two mass extinctions, and single celled organisms have existed for over 3000 million years.

    Further, not a single person (in this country, especially) can claim no culpability in the issue of resource extraction and and degradation. Acknowledging the problem is great. Mitigating ones consumption is commendable. But believing for a second that any industry that promotes itself as sustainable revels the depth of the pile of the wool rug pulled over our eyes.
    Last edited by rogbie; 12-20-2011 at 12:17 PM.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Where does the power come from to make those turbine blades? Certainly not from the wind turbines they're attached to.
    Excel will be producing 20% of their power in Colorado by renewables by 2020. I don't know what the percentage produced by wind is today, but it is not zero. So certainly some portion of the power used to produce the turbine blades comes from wind turbines themselves. Some comes from solar panels, some from coal and some from natural gas.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Jdub View Post
    They put money down for clean up before ever drilling, that is the point I'm trying to make. Bond / escrow...whatever.

    I made no comments on the amount.
    A bond is totally different than escrow. Saying they are putting money down by holding a bond is like saying you have $300,000 in the bank because you bought a $300,000 auto insurance policy. A key point here is that if a company drills multiple wells, they can cover it with ONE $60,000 bond. The situation in Rio Blanco county where a company abandoned multiple wells shows that this is a stupid concept and just another example of how this state is a giveaway to oil and gas producers. The severance taxes in Colorado are a fraction of what they are in Wyoming, New Mexico, Oklahoma or Texas. Our setback requirements are half of those in Texas. We just passed a requirement to disclose the contents of fracking fluids but then let the companies themselves declare that the contents were a "trade secret".

    The oil and gas industry loves Colorado more than any other state, because they operate here with the most lax regs and essentially the lowest tax burden of any of the top producing states. They absolutely own the legislature and the Governor's office.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    187
    Seems wierd that no one has invented a self generating engine for automobiles. Kind of like the hybrids now, but on steroids.
    Then again why would a big manufacture spend all the money on R&D.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    Excel will be producing 20% of their power in Colorado by renewables by 2020. I don't know what the percentage produced by wind is today, but it is not zero. So certainly some portion of the power used to produce the turbine blades comes from wind turbines themselves. Some comes from solar panels, some from coal and some from natural gas.
    While winds may fan the flames, never will wind be the flames.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post

    Copper wire, glass, and photovoltaics require greater energies to produce than the amount of energy generated by the end product. That is the exact opposite of the definition of sustainable.


    This is a right-wing talking point fallacy, and 10 seconds on Google can clear that up for you.

    The Oil Drum: Net Energy | The Energy Return of (Industrial) Solar - Passive Solar, PV, Wind and Hydro (#5 of 6)

    <cite>Energy return on investment (EROI) for photovoltaic energy

    File:EROI - Ratio of Energy Returned on Energy Invested - USA.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    </cite>

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Then again, on a geologic time scale we're but a blip. Even on a evolutionary time scale we're but a blip. Thinking that we make such a large impact is ****-centric. For example, birds have evolved through two mass extinctions, and single celled organisms have existed for over 3000 million years.
    This maybe the case but since we are here and now, I would rather not live in a world where there is mass man-made pollution (see Boston Harbor up to the early 90's). I would rather us deal with these issues and not leave it for future generation to hopefully deal with...just like the Republican's say about our national debt.

    The earth can clean itself over time however in many instances man is polluting faster than earth can repair itself. Ever drive up to Leadville? We are very smart people, we can find a way to progress that does not impact our ecomony or quality of life. Don't they say the younger generation maybe the first not too have a better quality of life than the previous generations?

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pau11y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,738
    Again, pointing out some misleading info about PV. From one of your ERIO sites:

    Approximately 2,895,000 exajoules (EJ) of solar radiation reaches Earth’s atmosphere yearly. When measured by satellite on the outer surface of Earth's atmosphere, this equates to about 1,366 watts per square meter. (only when the sun shines...so does this mean the satellite is in perpetual sunlight?) Thus, for the whole Earth, with a cross section of 127,400,000 km2, the power is 1.740×1017 W (this calc needs more clarification). This is an enormouse energy flow. In fact, the amount of solar energy intercepted by the Earth every minute is greater than the amount of fossil fuel the world uses every year. Another way to look at it is that on average, every square meter of the Earth’s surface intercepts 5.4 GJ of energy, approximately the same amount extracted from a barrel of oil, 200 kg of coal, or 140 m3 of natural gas. (not going to argue these points, but it needs to be qualified)

    So here we go:
    To start off, the maximum efficiency of PV is 50%, when averaged over a year. There is at best only 12 hours of day light. When you average this over a year, you remove the seasonal variations of longer days and nights.
    Assumption: these 12 hours of day light provide immediate power to PV cells instead of gradual ramp-up and down. I'll take this in trade for cloud effects to PV cells...clouds reflect light and can concentrate sunlight on the cells so they produce above their nameplate rating.
    By the metric of the article, they used 100% of the Earth's surface in its cross section. We can't...oceans. So, the 50% efficiency is now limited to 30% of land mass.
    Efficiency of the cell is further reduced by actual performance - terminal voltage. Today's cells are pushing 15% on the high side.
    All of this together: 0.5 * 0.3 * 0.15 = 0.0225, or 2.25% of the article's claimed value.

    Next, since the article did the cross section surface area and we can't, a root mean square value is about as close an estimate as I can "best fit" to the curvature of the earth in a non-tracking, fixed angle panel scheme ($$ROI on a tracking system worked out so the system can never pay for itself):
    0.0225/sqrt(2) = 0.0159, or 1.59%

    So, that's 1.59% based on what the article described of Earth's surface area can produce electricity. If we can capture this at a nice round number of 1000W/m2, we'd be set.
    The problems: we can't store the energy when it's dark, and the calc I used above is using 100% of the land mass.

    So the question: how much land are you willing to dedicate to PV panels? Then multiply that number by 3 for the batteries you'd need to ride thru the night.
    Naysayers never apologize. Critics go to their grave thinking everyone else is wrong.
    ╭∩╮( º.º )╭∩╮

  30. #30
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Pau11y View Post
    Again, pointing out some misleading info about PV. From one of your ERIO sites: .................
    So the question: how much land are you willing to dedicate to PV panels? Then multiply that number by 3 for the batteries you'd need to ride thru the night.

    Green Energy?


    This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is
    what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines

    In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale | Mail Online

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,373
    Your calculations make no sense. The whole point of EROI is whether a power source can produce more power over its lifetime than is used to produce, maintain and decommission it. You have absolutely nothing in your calculations about the amount of energy needed to produce a solar panel. EROI is generally expressed as a ratio, for example a 6:1 EROI means over the lifetime of the panel, it will produce six times as much energy as was used to produce it.

    How much land am I willing to dedicate? Well, for starters, my roof has enough square footage that PV could supply at least 1/2 my needs, so I guess an amount of land big enough to hold the additional panels not on my roof.

    But then my family electric bill (three adults) averaged over 12 months is about $45. I have no A/C, a very efficient furnace, and all of my bulbs are either LED or florescent. I turn off all of my electric stuff at night, and I have a single TV that runs maybe 5 hours per week. I am astounded when people complain about electric bills in the hundreds of dollars. WTH are they powering?

    I have known several people who are totally off the grid, and they are just fine. Both of my parents grew up without electricity until they were teenagers. Seriously, there is no reason other than being braindead pussies that we couldn't cut both our oil and electrical consumption in half with very little change in our lifestyles. Unfortunately our society is made up primarily of braindead pussies at this point. That will change going forward, because the crap will be hitting the fan in the next 20 years.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pau11y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,738
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    Green Energy?


    This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is
    what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines

    In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale | Mail Online
    I just wanted to point out the slight of hand being used in some of the "green" propaganda on actual facts. Your approach w/ the pics targets the emotions, and can be used as a two-edged sword. But there isn't a 2nd edge to distortion of facts. The way I did that bar napkin calc also distorts the facts some...can't be help as they're all (sound) estimates. But at least I tried to biased it in favor of the PV and it's wasn't EVEN close to how badly that article did.
    Naysayers never apologize. Critics go to their grave thinking everyone else is wrong.
    ╭∩╮( º.º )╭∩╮

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pau11y's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,738
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    Your calculations make no sense. The whole point of EROI is whether a power source can produce more power over its lifetime than is used to produce, maintain and decommission it. You have absolutely nothing in your calculations about the amount of energy needed to produce a solar panel. EROI is generally expressed as a ratio, for example a 6:1 EROI means over the lifetime of the panel, it will produce six times as much energy as was used to produce it.
    The clac points directly at what your articles claims a PV system can produce...1.59%
    This 1.59% is HUGE amounts, no doubt, so if we can do that I'm all for it!

    Unfortunately, the EROI isn't the metric used by ppl who decided if they should implement renewable energy or not, $$ROI is.

    Hey, I'm with you! We should be able to get off of fossil fuel. It'll just take a bigger chuck of each of our paychecks to do it, at least for now.

    You wave the word "*****" around like someone has committed a capital crime. Let me paint this picture. Energy cost is rising, while income (if any) is dropping. Green energy tech is expensive and our Xcel bill will have increase by 46% by the end of the next 5 years (Xcel figures). That $46 is now $60+. To you and I, maybe not much of an issue. But what about for those who are having difficulties paying the $46 now? You integrate a bunch of green tech and their bill jumps not to $60+, but to $80+, or $100+. What do they do? Doesn't this go directly to what you described as my unrealistic geographic economic analysis? Again, I repeat, the cost of energy has a direct correlation to the health of a nation's economy, its standard of living, and quality of life.
    Naysayers never apologize. Critics go to their grave thinking everyone else is wrong.
    ╭∩╮( º.º )╭∩╮

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pulser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,779
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Where does the power come from to make those turbine blades? Certainly not from the wind turbines they're attached to.
    All of our factory's world wide have a turbine on site that powers the factory. The only reason our Windser plant does not is they were not allowed to because how close they are to the loveland airport. Our turbines are built to last 20 years and can be upgraded past that life span. I completely reject that idea that wind energy is product of oil and unsustainable. its not true. The petrochemicals now being used world wide can and will be replaced by biofuel sources like algae.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Pau11y View Post
    The clac points directly at what your articles claims a PV system can produce...1.59%
    This 1.59% is HUGE amounts, no doubt, so if we can do that I'm all for it!

    Unfortunately, the EROI isn't the metric used by ppl who decided if they should implement renewable energy or not, $$ROI is.

    Hey, I'm with you! We should be able to get off of fossil fuel. It'll just take a bigger chuck of each of our paychecks to do it, at least for now.

    You wave the word "*****" around like someone has committed a capital crime. Let me paint this picture. Energy cost is rising, while income (if any) is dropping. Green energy tech is expensive and our Xcel bill will have increase by 46% by the end of the next 5 years (Xcel figures). That $46 is now $60+. To you and I, maybe not much of an issue. But what about for those who are having difficulties paying the $46 now? You integrate a bunch of green tech and their bill jumps not to $60+, but to $80+, or $100+. What do they do? Doesn't this go directly to what you described as my unrealistic geographic economic analysis? Again, I repeat, the cost of energy has a direct correlation to the health of a nation's economy, its standard of living, and quality of life.

    We have to make a leap of faith that shifting to alternatives will improve our economy, our standard of living and our quality of life. If our only measure is dollars, maybe the shift hurts, at least initially. If we have other measures, maybe everything improves, although I would submit that in the long run we will be better off dollar-wise, also. Our electric bill might have to increase by 46% in the next five years, and Xcel or whomever might blame that on the adoption of renewables, but ultimately the cost of coal and NG will also go up. The price of NG is extremely low right now because of massive drilling into shale plays, but now with a few years experience under their belts, the producers are finding that wells in the shale areas are playing out much faster than the traditional wells. We may very well convert a bunch of power plants to natural gas and end up regretting it in ten or twenty years when all the shale plays are played out, and we have to fall back on what is left. The BS from the NG industry about having 100 years worth of gas in the US has a bunch of assumptions under it, one being that shale wells have a lifecycle similar to traditional wells, the other being that consumption remains constant. If we convert power plants and transportation to NG, we have way less than 100 years, in fact, if we converted even half our transportation fleet to NG we would run out of it in about 40 years...not long after oil becomes too expensive.

    We can drill until we've drilled every square inch of the US, and in fact, I am certain that will happen. Our country has shown zero resolve in adopting a comprehensive energy policy, and instead we are just going to go business as usual until we hit the wall, then figure out what to do. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia with "oceans" of oil, and Europe with almost none, are both converting to wind, solar, geothermal and even wave power as fast as they can. There will be a tipping point where the energy costs of oil, coal and gas will be so high that we have no choice but convert, but the conundrum is that at that point, we have to use super-expensive oil, coal and gas to build the renewable infrastructure, which will make it much more expensive than if we phase it in gradually as we have been. Coal is not going to save us, because the extraction of coal uses massive amounts of diesel fuel and electricity. This is the "Receding Horizon" problem. We may see that developing and burning coal resources will save us from high oil and NG prices because it is cheaper, but by the time we get the coal out of the ground using oil and NG, the high cost of oil and NG has made the coal more expensive than originally predicted.

    My final point is this: if we have friendly or unfriendly sources willing to sell us oil at $100 a barrel, we should buy as much of it as we can afford. The oil in the ground in the US just becomes more and more valuable every day. Strategically, we should burn *other* countries' oil first, and then when the endgame hits, we still have some reserves of our own. When the crap really hits the fan, it is going to be very ugly. Basically we are going to be competing with China, India and Europe for Russia and OPEC's oil. They will have us by the gonads unless we can manage to save enough to run the military and a base economy on what is still left internally.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2wheelsnotfour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,849
    Just curious....raise your hand if your view on this topic has changed a result of this thread, especially the folks who favor crippling our economy with higher energy prices.....I didn't think so.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    This is a right-wing talking point fallacy, and 10 seconds on Google can clear that up for you.
    Fancy pants number wrangling doesn't change the fact that there are no smelters fired by wind or solar power. Nor are there wind or solar powered equipment to haul the raw materials from the Earth.

    As for the right-wing comment, well, now we know the skew of your perspective.

    From where I stand, industrial solar and wind power are born of the same evils are oil, gas, and coal extraction. Sure, we can, maybe, solve our energy problems with these sources of power. However, the cost to flora and fauna is the same, possibly more. A well pad is drilled and reclaimed in a relatively short amount of time. A large solar complex or wind farm will be there for decades. And what happens in 30 years when the repair cost is too great and the wind farm is abandoned? (I'm thinking of the abandoned wind farms in Southern California and Hawaii).

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Fancy pants number wrangling doesn't change the fact that there are no smelters fired by wind or solar power. Nor are there wind or solar powered equipment to haul the raw materials from the Earth.

    As for the right-wing comment, well, now we know the skew of your perspective.

    From where I stand, industrial solar and wind power are born of the same evils are oil, gas, and coal extraction. Sure, we can, maybe, solve our energy problems with these sources of power. However, the cost to flora and fauna is the same, possibly more. A well pad is drilled and reclaimed in a relatively short amount of time. A large solar complex or wind farm will be there for decades. And what happens in 30 years when the repair cost is too great and the wind farm is abandoned? (I'm thinking of the abandoned wind farms in Southern California and Hawaii).
    You may be shocked to know that most smelters are electric, which means they are indeed powered by wind and solar. Don't know what your point is there.

    You may also be shocked to know that electric draglines are often used in mining, which means part of the mining process is powered by wind and solar. And of course, there are a lot of conveyor belts that are electric. Again, I am missing your point.

    And you are apparently missing my point, which seemed pretty clear to me. Oil and Gas are finite resources, and if you are under 40 you will probably live to see the day when oil is not commonly used for transportation, and you will probably see the day when NG is not commonly used for household heat. We must come up with a different way of powering our society and economy. Period. We are much better off in the long run leaving the resources in the ground until we absolutely need them, for two major reasons: 1) strategically we are history if our enemies have access to oil and gas and we don't and 2) we may come up with better and less destructive ways of getting at the resources in the future. We need to start *now* to convert our society to renewables, because when oil hits $300 a barrel and our enemies are hoarding it, it is too late to convert.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    You may be shocked to know that most smelters are electric, which means they are indeed powered by wind and solar. Don't know what your point is there.

    You may also be shocked to know that electric draglines are often used in mining, which means part of the mining process is powered by wind and solar. And of course, there are a lot of conveyor belts that are electric. Again, I am missing your point.

    And you are apparently missing my point, which seemed pretty clear to me. Oil and Gas are finite resources, and if you are under 40 you will probably live to see the day when oil is not commonly used for transportation, and you will probably see the day when NG is not commonly used for household heat. We must come up with a different way of powering our society and economy. Period. We are much better off in the long run leaving the resources in the ground until we absolutely need them, for two major reasons: 1) strategically we are history if our enemies have access to oil and gas and we don't and 2) we may come up with better and less destructive ways of getting at the resources in the future. We need to start *now* to convert our society to renewables, because when oil hits $300 a barrel and our enemies are hoarding it, it is too late to convert.
    It's the same tired industry. The issue is not where it is coming from. The issue is how we're using it. For instance, the energy it takes to run my computer to type this. It's totally unnecessary.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2wheelsnotfour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,849
    The problem is those who are blindly pro "alternative" energy ignore economic factors because they are blindly pro "alternative" energy for ideological reasons. The reality is that "alternative" energy is not yet ready for prime time as far as replacing traditional energy sources from an economic stand point. Ie. "alternative" energy costs too much to produce too little energy and simply cannot satisfy our energy needs.

    However, because they are so blindy pro "alternative" energy these people are willing to sacrifice American jobs, economic prosperity, and our standard of living by advocating policies which result in high energy costs. Their hope is that making traditional energy so costly they can force us all to use "alternative" energy. They do this under the guise of saving the world from global warming or pollution. However, it makes no sense because countries such as India and China rightly refuse to decimate their economies in the same way. So pollution is not decreased. At the same time, as fossil fuel prices go up, that makes it increasingly economical to tap into hard to reach fuel sources. But of course that causes the blindly pro "alternative" energy folks to attempt to ban efforts at tapping those newly economical traditional fuel reserves.

    So the battle continues mean while high energy costs drag down the American economy while countries like India and China continue to progress through their industrial revolutions. So they are needlessly dampening the American economy based on ideological views without appreciating the economics affects.

    Newly discovered shale oil reserves could rescue the economies of rust belt states such as Ohio. But the blindly pro "alternative energy" people could care less about the economies of places like Ohio. The proposed pipe line from Canada to Texas could create 20,000 high paying jobs. But the blindly pro "alternative" energy folks don't care about jobs aside from their own "green" job.

    Yes, we should continue efforts to develop "alternative" energy but we should not sacrifice our current economy to do so. But blindly pro "alternative" energy folks don't think outside their ideology.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2wheelsnotfour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    Again, I am missing your point.

    And you are apparently missing my point, which seemed pretty clear to me. Oil and Gas are finite resources, and if you are under 40 you will probably live to see the day when oil is not commonly used for transportation
    Ironically as anti-fossil fuel policies drive the price of fossil fuels up, that makes it increasingly economical for hard to reach fuel reserves to be tapped. In conjunction with that, technological advances make it possible to find and tap fuel sources which were impossible to tap in the past. For example, a large natural gas reserve called the Utica Shale has been discovered. Other reserves have been discovered and new ones continue to be discovered. We are not running out of fossil fuel.

    This isn't to say we shouldn't develop "alternative" energy. But we don't have to develop "alternative" energy to the exclusion of fossil fuels or at the expense of our economy. But pro "alternative" energy folks apparently aren't satisfied with the pace at which American is adopting "alternative" energy so they want to artificially constrict the amount of fossil fuels at our disposal.

    But if "alternative" energy development isn't progressing fast enough it the "alternative" energy researchers' own d*mned fault. They get enough government money. They need to work harder, or get smarter people involved. Kick it up a notch if you want to compete. Its a dog eat dog world out there and you're wearing milk bone under wear. You need to work harder.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2wheelsnotfour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by honkinunit View Post
    You may be shocked to know that most smelters are electric, which means they are indeed powered by wind and solar. Don't know what your point is there.
    We live in one of the sunniest states in America. Why is the Colorado government requiring that Xcel migrate their power plants from coal to natural gas and not solar?

    I think the point the poster was making was that the reality is "alternative" energy is not yet ready to replace fossil fuels. Honestly I hope it one day will be able to replace fossil fuels, but if the economics don't yet make sense, it is ridiculous to attempt to force the issue by artificially constricting our access to fossil fuels. You might think differently if you were a truck driver, or a construction worker whose job is at risk due to economic problems. But you evidently have a "green " job which insulates you from these factors unlike the rest of us.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pulser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,779
    Quote Originally Posted by 2wheelsnotfour View Post
    Ironically as anti-fossil fuel policies drive the price of fossil fuels up, that makes it increasingly economical for hard to reach fuel reserves to be tapped. In conjunction with that, technological advances make it possible to find and tap fuel sources which were impossible to tap in the past. For example, a large natural gas reserve called the Utica Shale has been discovered. Other reserves have been discovered and new ones continue to be discovered. We are not running out of fossil fuel.

    This isn't to say we shouldn't develop "alternative" energy. But we don't have to develop "alternative" energy to the exclusion of fossil fuels or at the expense of our economy. But pro "alternative" energy folks apparently aren't satisfied with the pace at which American is adopting "alternative" energy so they want to artificially constrict the amount of fossil fuels at our disposal.

    But if "alternative" energy development isn't progressing fast enough it the "alternative" energy researchers' own d*mned fault. They get enough government money. They need to work harder, or get smarter people involved. Kick it up a notch if you want to compete. Its a dog eat dog world out there and you're wearing milk bone under wear. You need to work harder.
    What about the billions in tax breaks and subsidies the oil industry gets as they make record profits? I'm not asking for our energy prices to rise artificially. I just want the price of fossil fuels to stop being artificially lower. I think its time they fend for them selfs.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2wheelsnotfour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,849
    Are you in favor of increased drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? Are you in favor of drilling in ANWR? Are you in favor of building the Pipe line from Canada to Texas? Are you in favor of Fracking? Be honest with yourself. If you are not in favor of these things then you are, despite not admitting it or perhaps without realizing it, you are in favor of artificially high energy prices. How do you feel about SUVs?

    I am a free market person. I think companies and people should compete. I am against subsidies. I am against price ceilings. I am against price floors. I won't defend anyone receiving a subsidy. But oil company subsidies are not the reason "alternative" energy is not more competitive. Stay focused.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hitek79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,299
    What are the best tires for Front Range Tar Sand riding?

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2wheelsnotfour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,849
    We don't allow tires in Colorado. Tires are a product made from oil by products.

  47. #47
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,110
    Quote Originally Posted by pulser View Post
    Not when I spend the rest of the week conserving. And not when I spend every day making wind turbine blades so you and every one els in this country can have a future.
    Yep, you are still a hypocrite, and the reply above justifying your means is pathetic--cognitive dissonance.

    Thanks for saving the world for us!
    Last edited by lidarman; 12-20-2011 at 09:25 PM.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pulser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,779
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman View Post
    Yep, you are still a hypocrite, and the reply above justifying your means is pathetic--cognitive dissonance.

    Thanks for saving the world for us!
    And what do you do that you get to judge me?

    I am a realist and I know that oil dominates the economy and the world right now. But I also don't have to like it. I am also a production worker so I don't have the money to just go off the grid or to buy an electric car. I drive a PZEV car I turn lights out when I'm not in the room. I try to ride my bike as much as I can. I try to combine trips when I do use my car. I do my part. I fond hypocrite or pathetic to be rather strong words when I do more then most people do. And your welcome at lest I can feel that I am trying to make the world a better place. Its reality not fantasy. And it puts a smile on my face every day when a new blade go out the factory door.

  49. #49
    Rolling
    Reputation: lidarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,110
    Quote Originally Posted by pulser View Post
    And what do you do that you get to judge me?

    I am a realist and I know that oil dominates the economy and the world right now. But I also don't have to like it. I am also a production worker so I don't have the money to just go off the grid or to buy an electric car. I drive a PZEV car I turn lights out when I'm not in the room. I try to ride my bike as much as I can. I try to combine trips when I do use my car. I do my part. I fond hypocrite or pathetic to be rather strong words when I do more then most people do. And your welcome at lest I can feel that I am trying to make the world a better place. Its reality not fantasy. And it puts a smile on my face every day when a new blade go out the factory door.

    Do what you can. Cheers

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by lidarman View Post
    Yep, you are still a hypocrite, and the reply above justifying your means is pathetic--cognitive dissonance.

    Thanks for saving the world for us!
    feel better now?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Soapstone Natural Area CLOSED
    By fcna in forum Colorado - Front Range
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-18-2011, 08:07 PM
  2. Soapstone Prairie Natural Area CLOSED
    By fcna in forum Colorado - Front Range
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-06-2010, 08:58 PM
  3. Soapstone Prairie Natural Area OPEN (03/01/10)
    By fcna in forum Colorado - Front Range
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-28-2010, 03:46 PM
  4. Soapstone Natural Area Trail Conditions
    By fcna in forum Colorado - Front Range
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-14-2009, 08:37 PM
  5. Roaring Run Natural Area
    By drnich in forum Pennsylvania
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-29-2007, 12:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •