Fuel Prices….

[OldKat]

Wow! I’ve been gone few days and you guys have moved on to some really good points. bivol; I am sometimes amazed at the insight that you have. I know few American college students that are thinking at the level that you are. If there are more like you at home, I am pretty sure your country will find its way.

Yes it is a sad situation that our would-be “leaders” have gotten us into. Like somebody else said though, we don’t have to wait for Washington or London or any other center to lead us. We can make buying decisions (where possible) to support or own producers, let the marketers know … when you sell good, domestic products I will buy from you; keep pedaling this foreign made crap and I will let it stay on your shelves. I agree with whoever said it; Chinese made products are crap and I won’t buy them if at all possible.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming…

[OldKat]

blue80 wrote:

George, I think too that fuel prices will go up and stay up. From what I have been told:

1/U.S. dollar has been the global tier for commodity trades, and that has given the U.S. an edge on cheap fuel through OPEC. As the U.S. dollar is devalued and used less in global exchange, the U.S. advantage and subsidized fuel goes away

2/Emerging markets in asia/china are showing an insatiable lust for oil/energy. I was told no matter if all of us quit using our vehicles, fuel prices wouldn’t go down, as the growing demand is with the billion or so people planning to buy a car and heat their structures with fossil fuels in the next decade.

Hi near horse;

I’m confused. Either I misread his (blue80’s) original post, which I partially pasted above, or I am misunderstanding your premise … maybe both! I meant to make it clear that I disagreed with the idea that speculation as opposed to supply / demand was the driver in pricing energy (oil, gas, electricity … whatever), maybe I didn’t do so. I think where we differ on interpreting his original post is in the part about “if all of us quit using our vehicles, fuel prices wouldn’t go down”. I was taking that to mean that if all of us in the United States, or maybe the “western world” stopped using petroleum the price still wouldn’t go down, due to the fact that there has been greatly increased demand in Asia and India. I would be in agreement that there has in fact been a massive increase in demand in these areas of the world. My disagreement is in the concept that if the US and/or Europe closed the tap on crude usage that it wouldn’t impact prices. It would, and I can safely say that AJ would be in agreement with my belief. BTW: He is from India, so he is very interested in what is happening over there.

If you are interested, I can explain why I say that speculation does not impact spot prices (contrary to what Anderson Cooper, Bill O’Reilly and other media pundits have said about it). However it is a little complex (and dry); so I won’t go into it unless someone is really interested.

near horse wrote:

I also don’t understand why the 2-3% changes in supply/demand causing prices to move was a revelation – 2 to 3% still represents tens of billions of dollars (at least).

Maybe I failed to quantify what I was saying in this instance. Crude prices move in the same manner natural gas prices do, in fact in probably the same manner as all commodities do, in relation to supply / demand. Since my experiences are with gas rather than crude, let me use it as an example. Gas is trading on the spot market today at about $4.40 per dekatherm, which adjusted for inflation / weak dollar is higher, but not dramatically different than the $1.65 to 2.00 per dth it was trading at 15 years ago when I worked on the trading floor at the old Tenneco Gas Marketing and then Chevron USA. Obviously gas would move up and down in price relative to how much demand there was for it. The winter time prices would reflect increased demand for space heating, summer would see increased demand for electric generation due to air conditioning load, with the fall and spring typically seeing weaker price support due to less seasonal demand.

However, sometimes we would see prices ramp up slowly over a given period of time from a seasonal low of $1.50 or 1.60 until it reached what had been a hard cap, say $2.00. Then if there was an extreme heat wave or an extreme cold spell the prices would suddenly spike; $3.00, 4.00, 5.00, 6.00 maybe $7.0 or more per dekatherm. When I studied these spikes I realized that we hadn’t really seen that much of an increase in demand relative to the price spike, it was just that the last few percentage points of supply to cover this relatively small increase in demand came at a huge premium in price. There was simply too much demand chasing too little supply, even though the total increase in demand had not been that much over the “average” high demand for that general time period. I think this is consistent with the idea that while we may never truly run out of oil, it will eventually get so expensive that it can no longer be burned as fuel. When supply consistently runs just a relatively few percentage points below supply the price will get out of our reach. Hope this makes sense.

[bivol]

@jac 23516 wrote:

Good point on the domestic production Rod. Im not so sure these countries would collapse, surely they would knuckle down and get on with rebuilding their country… Cuba did..
Bivol a lot of the steel workers that were in the industry are retired now and youngsters dont want to get their hands dirty nowadays. Getting skilled workers for agriculture is a real problem now. I didnt know JCB were in India cousin Jack..
John

didn’t know it was that bad with young people! maybe they’ve learned that they will “always” be living well off so no need for a dirty job… for now.

cuba succeeded because they really had their backs against the wall, there was no other way out, and because there the state organizes everything. that’s one good thing about totalitarian states, they’re much tougher to crack down in disasters than democracies.

here skilled agircultural workforce is also a problem! but the best part is, they can’t even find un-skilled!

Marshal, the opposite would be a total locking up of borders, noone wants that. but we need the balance in open/close mechanisms.

globalization was an excuse from developed countries to go and rip off poorer countries. now, when they’ve been beaten at their own game by china and india, they’re still at it, only we (the common people) have to pay the piper!

[bivol]

OldKat, thank you!

from what i’ve learned so far is that in most cases it’s not the smartest or most educated people who lead the way, it’s instead some populists who by some weird pattern always rise to the surface and mold the future, at least here.
i can, without overstating say that the current level of education, culture, industry, art, or human rights is now lower today than it was 20 ys back in Yugoslavia. and it all didn’t help much in the 90s.

there are, in general, lots of students who are better than i am, but the new style “bolougne” education is making the educational system crumble under our feet! i can truly say that out old style system was higher quality than this (EVERYONE SAYS SO, students and professors alike!), but i’m still hoping that on rest of 2. and higher years the quality will rise. it should.

i was i think one of a few students when a professor from UCL came to hold a speech on cooperation between Uni. of Nebraska, Lincoln, and our Agric. Univ.of Zagreb. i’m ashamed to admit there were more staff than students.
so, it may seem that croatia has some good students, but every country has some.
from what i’ve seen from UCL, it’s very good and quality educational system. so never mind the handful that’d so or so be excellent, it’s the system who produces enough well qualified people.

back to oil:
it’s true speculation is a problem, but there is a question to how much the prices will grow. because i remember when the prices hit the all out maximum here, the were speculations that now addional oil reserves were tapable.

1. they mentioned canada, and their oil deposits in sand, which was previously too expensive to extract, but with rising costs, it’s becoming more and more interesting.

2. also, new oil reserves will be uncovered up north as the polar ice retreats.

3. then, there is a process called the Fischer-Tropsch process, used to turn coal (or wood) in (synthetic) fuel. and world still has more than enough coal.
this tech is extensively used to produce oil in SAR, where they have large coal deposits, and were banned from oil imports.

4. on UCL they’re experimenting on using switch-grass rather than maize for ethanol production.

5. one could also use bamboo for fuel. bamboo is fast growing, up to 30 meters in first year, and gives 12 tonns of biomass per hectare per year, compared to 2-3 tons of biomass/year wood gives.

so i think there is still both enough oil and ways to produce it in world, and we won’t physically be deprived of it. price of it is another thing.

it will be interesting to see how much will the governments of capable countries (aka the West) let the prices soar and choke the economies before they attempt to regulate them.

[goodcompanion]

@bivol 23548 wrote:

back to oil:
it’s true speculation is a problem, but there is a question to how much the prices will grow. because i remember when the prices hit the all out maximum here, the were speculations that now addional oil reserves were tapable.

1. they mentioned canada, and their oil deposits in sand, which was previously too expensive to extract, but with rising costs, it’s becoming more and more interesting.

2. also, new oil reserves will be uncovered up north as the polar ice retreats.

3. then, there is a process called the Fischer-Tropsch process, used to turn coal (or wood) in (synthetic) fuel. and world still has more than enough coal.
this tech is extensively used to produce oil in SAR, where they have large coal deposits, and were banned from oil imports.

4. on UCL they’re experimenting on using switch-grass rather than maize for ethanol production.

5. one could also use bamboo for fuel. bamboo is fast growing, up to 30 meters in first year, and gives 12 tonns of biomass per hectare per year, compared to 2-3 tons of biomass/year wood gives.

so i think there is still both enough oil and ways to produce it in world, and we won’t physically be deprived of it. price of it is another thing.

it will be interesting to see how much will the governments of capable countries (aka the West) let the prices soar and choke the economies before they attempt to regulate them.

The basic problem with oil is not that it would run out. Rather it is the concept of EROEI, or energy returned over energy invested. Regardless of how much money is spent producing energy and bringing it to market, if the amount of energy used doing so is more than the energy used then it cannot be done. For this reason there can never be a corn ethanol industry that uses corn ethanol power at every stage of production. Such a system would produce a little less or a little more than nothing, depending on whose analysis you read. The only reason we have such a system at all is because it is subsidized by cheaper fossil fuels, and through political manuvering on the part of the corn lobby.

Portable fuels used to be simply extracted from pools of oil lying on the surface of the earth or from “gushers.” 100 years ago the EROEI in the oil industry was 100 to 1 or more, it was so easy to get at oil. But now (OldKat, please correct me if I’m wrong) the EROEI is 2:1, and dropping. It will continue to drop as the more readily-accessible sources of energy that remain are depleted.

Of the various biofuel and coal-derived liquid fuels you mentioned, none approach the EROEI of the remaining oil and natural gas deposits and for this reason the energy giants have relatively little interest in them, whatever their PR departments might say on their full-page ads. It is simply impossible for their economists to conceive of a world in which their production will ever be viable on the scale that would be required to satiate demand.

If production cannot keep abreast of rising demand, prices rise rapidly and economic growth is choked off. Right now worldwide production is keeping pace with demand through ceaseless exploration and exploitation of projects that are small in scale, energy-intensive to carry out, risky in terms of human life and the environment, costly, remotely located, and so on. The easy projects have already been done.

The biofuel crops in particular have the added disadvantage of rapidly depleting soil carbon. Here in Middlebury VT we have a biofuel project involving willow, analogous to bamboo. It can only be extracted for about 5 years before yields diminish and the crop needs to be replanted and fertilizer applied. The long term impact of extracting biomass year after year and returning nothing to the soil other than chemical fertilizer (assuming this remains available and affordable into the future) is seldom considered by proponents of biofuels, even in an august academic community like Middlebury.

But bear in mind that these ideas are conjured up not as an extension of centuries-old subsistence farming systems. Cropping switchgrass or bamboo and shipping every stalk off the farm each year is no more related to sustainable farming than clear-cutting is related to sustainable logging. But as costs rise and people search with increasing desperation for some way out of the bind, I’m sure we will see no end to the biofuel discussion any time soon.

[bivol]

so far i think i understand what you want to say, but it was never my attention to think that these fuels could simply “take over” oil, and that we’d continue with our current, energy wasting lifestyles. that much i know, without this much, and this cheap, oil, it wont be possible.

as for ERNOI, i know at least two processes (gasification and F-T process) that have proven to work in ENROI, as i understand it.
F-T process was used for decades in SAR, because of oil embargo against the apartheid regime, and it worked well enough, cars had fuel.
ofcourse it won’t be able to satisfy all the current demands from people, but then again, does it need to? in a serious fuel shortage that could be a part of the soultion.
i was never claiming we could maintain the satus quo with alternative fuels, just that they could be used for necessary purposes.

second solution, gasification (wood gas) was used for at least 5 years. i know, in terms of a long-term, global solution, it isn’t one. but it can at least cut some distance, somewhere, to some people.

also, if the world is to run out of oil, there will be no oil for everyone. this means there will be no oil for, say, western, chinese or indian industries, meaning there will be no cheap, bad-quality, useless products. this in turn leading to no significant and constant shipments, meaning again no cheap good that close local factories (because of shipment costs if not production) so we’ll revert hopefully to a more local production and industries.

if fuel prices go up, people will have to change their habits or find a way around then (individuals driving on w-g, for ex).

what worries me the most id the energy available for production of basic foodstuffs. if we have that, we have the time to figure the rest and blunt the edges to any potential change for the worse.

[goodcompanion]

@bivol 23559 wrote:

as for ERNOI, i know at least two processes (gasification and F-T process) that have proven to work in ENROI, as i understand it.
F-T process was used for decades in SAR, because of oil embargo against the apartheid regime, and it worked well enough, cars had fuel.
ofcourse it won’t be able to satisfy all the current demands from people, but then again, does it need to? in a serious fuel shortage that could be a part of the soultion.
i was never claiming we could maintain the satus quo with alternative fuels, just that they could be used for necessary purposes.

second solution, gasification (wood gas) was used for at least 5 years. i know, in terms of a long-term, global solution, it isn’t one. but it can at least cut some distance, somewhere, to some people.

if fuel prices go up, people will have to change their habits or find a way around then (individuals driving on w-g, for ex).

what worries me the most id the energy available for production of basic foodstuffs. if we have that, we have the time to figure the rest and blunt the edges to any potential change for the worse.

It’s all possible. The core problem is that the alternative fuels that are cost-effective in terms of energy are pretty hard on the land. The ones that are not hard on the land are not cost-effective.

In France during a 19th century coal shortage the nation’s forests were converted to charcoal in desperation, and still haven’t recovered. I kind of feel that if we get similarly desperate for fuel that good forestry and farming will get short shrift.

And important to note that none of these things would take place in the context of the global marketplace as we now know it. So the priorities of resource managers would probably shift from profit to survival. Whether this is better or worse for the planet as a whole is anybody’s guess.

[Anonymous]

here skilled agircultural workforce is also a problem! but the best part is, they can’t even find un-skilled!

Bivol I think your right but wrong here in the state I am in the gov. breaks and returns on farming taxes causes the old guys not willing to share there experience and the young guys afraid that you might get a piece of there share so they hire imigrant workers that they send home after the work is done. I tried this past yr to cut tobacco pick taters and produce and they didnt want to teach me let alone let me work so its not entirely the young people fault.

As for the chicken little “the sky is falling” it aint but we better change our practices before we end up in a bad predicament.

As for china needing our markets they do for now but they have already fronted the money to expand the panama canal so there big vessels can get through to there larger european market which is as I understand 2-3 times larger than ours so where does that leave us maybe playing second fiddle.

[bivol]

@JimB 23569 wrote:

here skilled agircultural workforce is also a problem! but the best part is, they can’t even find un-skilled!

Bivol I think your right but wrong here in the state I am in the gov. breaks and returns on farming taxes causes the old guys not willing to share there experience and the young guys afraid that you might get a piece of there share so they hire imigrant workers that they send home after the work is done. I tried this past yr to cut tobacco pick taters and produce and they didnt want to teach me let alone let me work so its not entirely the young people fault.

As for the chicken little “the sky is falling” it aint but we better change our practices before we end up in a bad predicament.

As for china needing our markets they do for now but they have already fronted the money to expand the panama canal so there big vessels can get through to there larger european market which is as I understand 2-3 times larger than ours so where does that leave us maybe playing second fiddle.

youre right Jim, on spot!

basically the current level of energy consumption is unsustainable, and we have to change our ways, wether we like it or not.
and frankly i don’t quite understand what is so unnatural in less mobility and cars.
why is it normal for every person to own a car? it has become a neccessity because of surrent economic practices, but with fuel prices rising, that system will have to change….
i mean, it was because there was cheap oil that cars were introduced in the first place. that mobility led to the possibilities harnessed by this economic system, but long term it wont work like this. renewable resources will enable the system of basic transport and so on continue to work, but i don’t see a bright future for current level of personal mobility with technology we have.

i guess situation at your place is even worse than here, in this sector, although rosy it aint here, too. basically we had a decrease in used arable land from 3 mil hecrates (6 mil. acres) in 1990 to about 1 mil hectares (2 mil acres) of land used today. it’s obvious that the government works in favour of trade lobbies importing food.

i dont know how it is on passing down the knowledge, but here there are instances young folk want to stay in the village and work on the land, and older folks wont hear about agircultuaral schools, where agriculture is properly tought. instead they insist that young folk must attend something else, because : why’d you wana learn agriculture? do it as we’ve always done it!” it’s a crutch.

[bivol]

@goodcompanion 23560 wrote:

It’s all possible. The core problem is that the alternative fuels that are cost-effective in terms of energy are pretty hard on the land. The ones that are not hard on the land are not cost-effective.

In France during a 19th century coal shortage the nation’s forests were converted to charcoal in desperation, and still haven’t recovered. I kind of feel that if we get similarly desperate for fuel that good forestry and farming will get short shrift.

And important to note that none of these things would take place in the context of the global marketplace as we now know it. So the priorities of resource managers would probably shift from profit to survival. Whether this is better or worse for the planet as a whole is anybody’s guess.

yes, alt fuels are more expensive but thats not the point. the point is to be able to keep the basic system running, like public transport, in a much narrower scale than today ofcourse, until something comes along.

alt fuels can’t replace oil, but can enable us to operate the most important stuff. lots of private cars not included.

so, yes, there will be concern for survival rather than profit and competition.
but, we’ve all historically done it – and successfully – so, at least we know it can be done. even if shifting “back” won’t be pleasant.

[goodcompanion]

@bivol 23617 wrote:

yes, alt fuels are more expensive but thats not the point. the point is to be able to keep the basic system running, like public transport, in a much narrower scale than today ofcourse, until something comes along.

alt fuels can’t replace oil, but can enable us to operate the most important stuff. lots of private cars not included.

so, yes, there will be concern for survival rather than profit and competition.
but, we’ve all historically done it – and successfully – so, at least we know it can be done. even if shifting “back” won’t be pleasant.

The problem I have with these solutions is that they are usually suggested not as a patch-through solution during very difficult times ahead, but rather as a reason that everything will all be okay, and that our lifestyles will be sustainable after all, and as an excuse for inaction. They are also usually suggested as something that “they” will figure out. I understand that that’s not your meaning, bivol. But even you say, “until something comes along.” Isn’t it possible that nothing will come along unless individuals like you and me bring it along?

Personally I have very little faith that the alternative fuel approaches, which are increasingly controlled by large bureaucracies and corporations, will have any positive lasting impact on our culture. And their implementation has real capacity for destruction.

[Carl Russell]

So all of this says to me it comes down to austerity. I get really uncomfortable thinking about how these huge global forces impact my life and choices. I know I can’t get away from them completely, but whatever I can do for myself, and whatever I can do without, will go along way toward reducing the impact.

It is very hard not to think about what “WE” should all do, especially as the choices “WE” all make do affect all of us. However, I have learned that I can rationalize for myself and family a level of austerity that I will never convince others of. I really think that success will not be dependent on how much profit we can generate based on costs relative to other methods of production or lifestyle. Rather, I believe success will come from a reduction in need for things that require financial outlay.

It has been something I have been working on in my life for nearly 30 years. I realize that as we look to the horizon it appears as though there is a huge crisis looming that seems to require rapid response. I am afraid that rapid responses will cost too much, which will reduce their applicability.

I also think that part of the solution is patience and purposeful personal response. In the early 80’s I was convinced of an environmental and economic collapse. I was so certain that I believed there was no time to waste. At times I have been exasperated by how long it has taken. It still seems imminent, but I truly believe the solutions are built slowly over a long period of time.

It is a lot like farming to me. If every year we expect our inputs to be only as much as what we can afford based on what we expect our production to be, then eventually we end up with land that has no reserve when we need it. However, if we are constantly adding nutrients, building little mounds of resources, adding efficiencies, banking for the future, not only can we build the reserve we need, we can afford to do it along the way.

It is in this light that I see the issue of fuel prices. Although I buy a lot of fuel to make my life function on a daily basis, I have been building reserves of energy, nutrients, skills and infrastructure. These add to my daily efficiencies, but it is also a lifestyle of austerity. I do without many things because I am constantly putting away value…. conserving expense.

The most glaring oversight that I hear in so many public education , policy decisions, and media presentations is conservation. Reversing the trend for more and better will probably require significant broad-based failure of political/economic systems. It is a cultural assumption that we can spend our way out of the limitations of the present. It is just another veil of denial over the ecological truth of human existence.

There is an organization called Riot for Austerity http://simplereduce.wordpress.com/riot-for-austerity90-rules/ where participants challenge each other to reduce their total consumption. Using this site we were able to calculate that we use about 1/6th the energy of the average American household….. and that actually includes our small farming and my logging enterprise. It may be pretty sobering to realize how prepared you already are….. On the other hand it is also alarming to realize how wasteful many others are.

I guess that’s what I am saying also. We may not be able to completely isolate ourselves from the impact of global fuel dependency, but there are huge numbers of people who are much more dependent, and most of them are just not going to be able to see any other way to live in the modern world.

We may get swept away with the cleansing tide of sudden desolation, but we may not as well. It may be a few generations yet, and in the interim we just keep laying the groundwork, building the foundation, adding reserve, and doing without. It certainly won’t do squat in the short term, but if there is a long term possibility, I believe it is the only answer that will work.

Carl

[near horse]

“It is just another veil of denial over the ecological truth of human existence.”

IMHO – the ecological truth of human existence has been to manipulate the regulators of populations (human and otherwise) so as to allow unfettered growth in our numbers. While it may be humane (in some cases), it is undeniably challenging the limits of the resources on this planet. If we look at places in the natural world where we “manipulate” natural controls for other populations of species, they end up needing more and more interventions to maintain their existence, interventions that we aren’t willing to address in humans (like there’s too many of us) – elephants in Krueger National Park, a finite area (you have to cull them), deer pops in the US (cull via hunting but pops are still high due to predator removals etc …). Population regulators are ugly – predation, disease, starvation – and we can’t stand to see it.

It seems ludicrous to talk of sustainability as if it’s some final destination that we’ll reach someday and be in ecological stasis with the rest of the biological world – it can’t work without looking at limiting human population growth AND how much we draw on the finite resources here. I often think that from the first days of manipulating our environment, we set forth upon this path of unsustainablity. There were perhaps turns we could have made along the way but decisions and choices made well before us have led us to this place. Crap – now what?

“To infinity and beyond!”

[bivol]

You’re right Eric, i didn’t mean it like that. what i meant was a non-obligatory sort of dare to the brains of the world: ok, now we need you, do something IF YOU CAN. if not, we’ll manage anyhow.

and yes, it is well possible that nothing will come along unless “common folk” don’t work it out. but, isn’t there, frankly, already enough to tap on as it is? the best thing is we might not have to invent anything, but simply be willing enough change our practices (here i mean people of a nation as a whole. Carl, good work!!), and have to make do basically without or with very little outside energy, and what little alternative fuels well access will be used to smooth the important stuff out.

if there aint no fuel, there are these important issues:

1. food production – smaller plots easier to till. more people will have to revert to farming

2. mobility – bikes, trains, trucks, whatever gets you from A to B. animals and feet included.

3. goods allocation – there will still be trains for most neccessary stuff

4. manufacturing goods – smaller scale industry. also people making more by hand.

why wouldn’t people in a fuel-scarce future use a bike a bit more?
this may sound like a tree-hugger clichee, but it can, believe me, get you very far in a very short time!

my dad was a pro bike driver, and he’d routinely cover about 360 km on highway by bike in a single training session, in a single afternoon, and then go do other stuff. no biggie.

but if it’d be me, the world wouldn’t fare well, i’m afraid (or would it?), because i think changing our ways as a whole and re-adopting some low-tech practices is the only way to live after fossil fuels if there is no major technology break-through. i think low tech solutions are a major part of solution. now we have a world which has a cult in high-tech stuff.but then it’s that army saying “improvise, adapt, overcome” (or localy: make do, comrade!)

a thought: big oil lobbies practically control and suppress every serious rival in potential energy.
i think that they have already accumulated a lot of technologies and patents which can give or tap the energy al around us, in the sky etc. that they don’t give it is another thing.

Tesla said:”energy is all around us, we just have to use it.” back then he wanted to use some of his inventions to tap on the static electricity in the stratosphere and provide free power, but the investors were against it! why? because they couldn’t make money out of something people could get for free. even worse, they’d loose money!

[Carl Russell]

near horse;23628 wrote:

“It is just another veil of denial over the ecological truth of human existence.”

IMHO – the ecological truth of human existence has been to manipulate the regulators of populations (human and otherwise) so as to allow unfettered growth in our numbers. While it may be humane (in some cases), it is undeniably challenging the limits of the resources on this planet……. Crap – now what?

“To infinity and beyond!”

This is exactly right….. The truth is we have technologically advanced ourselves into oblivion. We have created such an imbalance that there are very few options that will work. We certainly can’t seriously believe that more technology will be the answer. The truth is we are…(you choose your favorite term)ed.

My choice is to be personally optimistic. I have seen evidence on the landscape of people who knew more about what they were doing than many people today could imagine. Their knowledge has been usurped by a cultural dependence on technological ease.

I am hopeful that there will be islands of humanity that are interested in finding ways to exist more successfully. I just want to leave some scratches on the Earth that go some distance to explain my perspective, in case that will help.

Carl

[Author]

Posts