1973 all over again?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Pura Vida said:
I have just been hoping for the US to combined increased US oil production, development and implantation of energy efficient homes, new autos, trucks and boats with an end result that we no longer imported oil from outside the US.
Click to expand...

I don't mind importing things. I do not mind importing oil.

What I do mind, is having one group, or country, or commodity producer having the ability to influence control over our economy.

Oil dependance created that situation. Having the USA become a net oil exporter changes the whole economic situation on a global scale for the better.

That, and quite simply, oil extraction, creates jobs. Good paying honest jobs. That's good for everyone.
 
Last edited:
MurrayM said:
Not quite:

Kitimat residents vote 'no' in pipeline plebiscite - The Globe and Mail
Click to expand...

Murry

Thaks for the link, but it is meaningless. Yes, in a small town in BC the local residents, in a non binding vote, voted against a pipeline.

I live in Alaska, and I work in the largest oil field in North America. I see the oilfield jobs with my own eyes every single day.

I not only see the jobs directly in the oilfield, I see them in town. I see people working hard, makking a good living, and spending that money. Oil jobs benefit everybody around them. Thats because if I make a dollar, I spend it, generally locally. That employs people in every industry.
 
Art said:


For many, many decades the U.S. has sucked up Middle East’s reserve oil to keep us moving along in the procedural race of national and international.....
Click to expand...


I don't believe the U.S. has ever been much of an importer of Middle East oil. Venezuela, yes, and Canada. But Middle East oil goes to Europe, India, and Asia.

From everything we've heard recently in the course of our work overseas, the Saudis aren't concerned about US or Canadian oil production. Their current policies and actions are aimed at maintaining stability in their region, which is a huge concern for them.
 
ksanders said:
Murry

Thaks for the link, but it is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Far from meaningless! It was vital in stopping Prime Minister Harper and Enbridge from claiming they had 'social license' in British Columbia, made international news, and was a contributing factor for Harper giving his Kiss of Death approval to the project.

BC has had a moratorium on exploratory drilling offshore for oil and gas for over 50 years. Why should BC shoulder most of the risk for Alberta's tar sands diluted bitumen (and the mere handfull of jobs an export pipeline would provide) when we aren't willing to put our coastline at risk for multigenerational harm for our own pot of petro gold?

Don't know if you saw the extra link I edited into my post above...might shed some light on why this project is so risky.
 
Without the resource industry and exporting of various products, Western Canada would be in a real bind. Kitimat would not exist as it's very being is based upon exporting of refined Al resulting from hydro electric power.

The real truth regarding the pipelines from the tar sands to the BC coast is they are not needed by the oil producers, they were only an option. Tar sands oil is too expensive and without 100 dollar oil Alberta's fortunes therefrom will flag dramatically. Thanks to the US oil industry's ingenuity, oil will remain in oversupply for the foreseeable future and world politics will be very much changed over the next century. Thus the relationship between tar sands production and Western Canada's place in oil exporting is murky.

Alas, Kitimat's very existence is threatened too as the world's glut of Al keeps prices of the silver metal low. Without outside economic help from infrastructure cost sharing the pipeline would have brought, the current Al business in Kitimat may well be doomed. The old adage "be careful what you wish for," is at play here. Look no further than Ocean Fals for a hint of Kitimat's future. There are forces now in motion and soon to be realized by the BC public. The big winner will be Prince Rupert, now the primary Western Canada outlet for Alberta oil.

Sadly, the demise of these oil outlet options will curtail development of much needed tar sands cleanup improvements in Alberta. So a double whammy has occurred for Canada, tar sands jobs and Kitimat existence are foreshadowed.

None of the U.S. or Saudi oil producers are sad about your success Murray. Nor the North Sea producers which have huge public and government support for that oil sector's success. Think of Kitimat as a domino being pulled, it really does work that way.
 
Last edited:
Marin said:
I don't believe the U.S. has ever been much of an importer of Middle East oil. Venezuela, yes, and Canada. But Middle East oil goes to Europe, India, and Asia.

From everything we've heard recently in the course of our work overseas, the Saudis aren't concerned about US or Canadian oil production. Their current policies and actions are aimed at maintaining stability in their region, which is a huge concern for them.
Click to expand...

1973 oil embargo that got this whole rigmarole of increasing/fluxing oil prices underway was due to Canada and Venezuela... NOT! It was solely due to OPEC’s crude oil price alterations... led by Saudi Arabia.

Recently deceased Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud put his intelligently devised and now developing global oil price “war-game” into motion during his last few years of life. His plans are for this price-war to last as long as necessary so that Saudi Arabia remains on top… even higher up than before. His intent was (and is from his grave) to insure international needs for Saudi oil by crushing the other “oil-sales-dependent” producer nations’ economies while simultaneously thwarting the highly leveraged, new tech manners of oil production via simply making them unaffordable to continue. Saudi Arabia’s break-even cost for extracting per barrel is $10. Other nations and oil companies’ costs range from $40 to $130. Although Saudi Arabia would for a couple to few years greatly reduce its annual income by dropping its price of oil way down… unlike other oil-production-dependent nations (and companies) it will not go broke. And, unlike the relatively fledging and greatly leveraged high-tech-oil-retrieval companies in U.S., Canada ,and other established countries, whose economies are not solely dependent on oil exports… Saudi has more than enough liquid cash to weather this global economic “oil-based” price-war-storm that King Abdullah planned and is now being put into action.

U.S does import from Canada and Ven too; more so than yesteryear. But, it is Saudi Arabia that sets the world standard for crude oil availability as well as crude oil price. U.S. also imports a lot of oil from SA.

Of course the Middle East, Saudi Arabia in particular (The BIG Dog), does not want the world to know all the all of the real reasons why they have dropped and are continuing to drop their oil price. And, a small sum of this drop is for as you mention "... aimed at maintaining stability in their region..."; good picture for them to paint as they economically crush other producers - around the world. Vast majority of their reasoning is to break the oil-economy of other nations and to thwart the ever increasing availability of oil via technology improvements… by driving companies and locations into bankruptcy and therefore production shut downs.

U.S. Imports by Country of Origin: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

U.S. Imports from Saudi Arabia: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMUSSA2&f=M

U.S. Imports from Canada: http://business.financialpost.com/2014/10/08/oil-canada-exports-us/?__lsa=593e-5d75

Venezuela's future? 'Barbarity and people looting' (watch all three cnbc videos – ESPECIALLY Video # 3): Falling crude: Oil prices crush Venezuela's ailing economy#.

Happy Oil-Glut/Price-War Daze! - Art :popcorn:
 
Last edited:
Art said:
U.S. Imports by Country of Origin: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

U.S. Imports from Saudi Arabia: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMUSSA2&f=M

U.S. Imports from Canada: http://business.financialpost.com/2014/10/08/oil-canada-exports-us/?__lsa=593e-5d75

Click to expand...

Good find Art. This pretty much summarises the reason behind what the Saudis are up to.
They are getting rid of the competition, which won't be hard with the huge difference in cost in extracting the stuff.
 
Sunchaser:

Kitimat was given a choice, and despite there being no spending limits on Enbridge who used a barrage of steady TV, radio, and full page newspaper ads across BC, gifts of iPads to Kitimat high school students, 4x8 signs around town, glossy brochures mailed to every address, and flying teams of 'experts' to Kitimat for their door knocking campaign, they lost.

Kitimat's Mayor and Counil also allowed anybody who was a resident of town two weeks prior to the plebiscite to vote...there were thousands of workers living in camps just outside of town for the construction of the new aluminum smelter (who couldn't vote) but there were hundreds who lived in town who could.

Kitimat didn't vote 'no' lightly, given we had the dubious distinction of being the fastest shrinking city in Canada; going from 14,000 to 8,000 about a decade ago.

Harper has washed his hands of Enbridge's Northern Gateway proposal because he knows he needs BC to stay Prime Minister. I giggle to think he became a politician because Ottawa was telling Alberta what to do against its wishes, and now, he risks his parliamentary majority or even the Prime Ministership if he pushes export pipelines to tidewater against the wishes of the majority of British Columbians.

My feeling is Harper will support the Energy East pipeline because it will mean refineries (and jobs) in eastern Canada, and he'll play the humanitarian card in order to get diluted bitumen to Europe so they aren't so dependant on Russia.

Kitimat is no Ocean Falls...there will always be people other than the Haisla who will never leave, and will always find a way to live here. Will our fortunes wax and wain? You bet. We just have a problem with Enbridge, who spilled 3.8 million litres into both the Kalamazoo River and in Hardisty Alberta, who has admitted they will burn our Kitimat River estuary after a spill, who has admitted they will dredge the salmon gravel out of our river and close it to fishing for "at least four years", who admitted a spill at Hunter Creek would pollute nearly the entire length of the Kitimat River in as little as four hours but their spill response commander would just be showing up on scene to assess if it was safe for workers to approach in those same four hours, and who has no responsibility once the diluted bitumen is put aboard foreign flagged VLCC's.

Then there's the two 'Z' turns between Hecate Strait and Douglas Channel...
 
Last edited:
West said:
@Murray


I think that you will find a gradual "change of heart" as the oil/gas companies include the natives in profit sharing.
BC's 3 oil refineries: which will go? - Industry News - Pipeline News North
Click to expand...

Yup, you are right. There may be a "tipping point" where the majority of BC residents will support diluted bitumen pipelines, and refineries with the jobs they generate may be what it takes. We'll just have to wait and see if any of these projects have the legs to reach the National Energy Board review level.

It appears diluted bitumen export pipelines constructed with foreign workers and loaded aboard foreign flagged vessels is too much risk for too little reward.
 
Murray

The way I look at it, again as someone who makes their living off of oil, is that if your community does not want what our industry brings to town, then so be it. That is fantastic!

I on the other hand would, and do, use my vote to encourage responsible, safe, development of this resource, and welcome the good paying jobs, and all that brings to my state.

My lifestyle is based on oil. My boat, and almost all the other large recreational boats in our harbors were bought with money that in some way, shape, or form, came from oil.

I love the fact that our local oil companies hire every graduate from our local trade tech colleges, and pay those kids, after a training period of course, upwards of $130K per year plus benefits. That's lifestyle money Murray. That's what the youth of our state have to look forward to, if they work hard, and study hard, and do a good job.

Nope, I'm glad for oil, and all it brings to Alaska!

In this day and age where college graduates elsewhere are underemployed, and living with their parents, I like that Alaska is different. You show me a "average" kid, not the college bound type, and I'll show you a kid who can work hard at something like a welder, or pipe fitter, or equipment operator, and make over a hundred grand a year at his trade. I'll show you a kid that can buy a nice house, and a nice car, and yes, even a decent boat if he wants. I'll show you a kid with something to look forward to.

You see Murray, oilfields require work. Real work. Every craft. Every trade, every profession. I love it, and support it.

I also fully support your communities right to determine its own destiny, and all that comes with it as well.

I was in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR for short) a couple of years ago. I was working in the Eskimo village of Kaktovik Alaska. I asked an older man if he supported drilling in ANWR. He said NO! He said he prefers the old ways, hunting and gathering, and his culture which is fading fast.

I then asked a young man if he supported drilling in ANWR. He said, YES drill, and drill soon. He said that he loved the old native ways of hunting and gathering but he pointed to his new 4 wheeler and said "I can't make the payments on that using Muktuk (whale blubber) and caribou skins" He said "I have electricity, and a truck, and a house payment, and a 4 wheeler. We need jobs to buy all that"
 
Last edited:
ksanders said:
Murray

The way I look at it, again as someone who makes their living off of oil, is that if your community does not want what our industry brings to town, then so be it. That is fantastic!

I on the other hand would, and do, use my vote to encourage responsible, safe, development of this resource, and welcome the good paying jobs, and all that brings to my state.

My lifestyle is based on oil. My boat, and almost all the other large recreational boats in our harbors were bought with money that in some way, shape, or form, came from oil.

I love the fact that our local oil companies hire every graduate from our local trade tech colleges, and pay those kids, after a training period of course, upwards of $130K per year plus benefits. That's lifestyle money Murray. That's what the youth of our state have to look forward to, if they work hard, and study hard, and do a good job.

Nope, I'm glad for oil, and all it brings to Alaska!

In this day and age where college graduates elsewhere are underemployed, and living with their parents, I like that Alaska is different. You show me a "average" kid, not the college bound type, and I'll show you a kid who can work hard at something like a welder, or pipe fitter, or equipment operator, and make over a hundred grand a year at his trade. I'll show you a kid that can buy a nice house, and a nice car, and yes, even a decent boat if he wants. I'll show you a kid with something to look forward to.

You see Murray, oilfields require work. Real work. Every craft. Every trade, every profession. I love it, and support it.

I also fully support your communities right to determine its own destiny, and all that comes with it as well.
Click to expand...

Hi Kevin,

That's all great and makes a big heap of sense. You also have the Jones Act ensuring it's US vessels carrying the oil, and that oil is mostly, I assume, headed for US refineries.

The Northern Gateway proposal will be built mostly by foreign workers, be loaded aboard foreign flagged vessels, and be refined in foreign refineries.

Another concern for us is that the 1.3 billion litre tank farm and proposed supertanker loading docks (sitting a couple kilometers from the Kitimat River estuary, Kitimat, and Kitamaat Village and which will be controlled from Enbridge's Edmonton Alberta control room) are about 20 kilometers away from an earthquake fault line along the bottom of Douglas Channel that was only discovered when a modern hydrographic survey was recently done.

This project was described years ago by an unnamed oil executive as a dead man walking...a perfect description :thumb:
 
West said:
Good find Art. This pretty much summarises the reason behind what the Saudis are up to.
They are getting rid of the competition, which won't be hard with the huge difference in cost in extracting the stuff.
Click to expand...

Thanks, West.

Many parameters of hydrocarbon fuels are items my associates and I keep close tabs on. We are extremely interested at the rate of burn, efficiency of burn, and emitted exhaust into atmosphere with transfer into oceans. Following the suppliers' wholesale cost-wars and their product volumes is an outcropping of our efforts. We're also interested in retail price levels.

In atmosphere and oceans there is ample CO2 to supply this world for well over a century with "carbon neutral" recyclable, drop-in, fungible liquid hydrocarbon fuels...i.e. gasoline , diesel, jet fuel. Devices to accomplish this exist. Increasing design development is ongoing. Implementation is another story.

If you think the current crude oil price-war is intense, or that SA will likely decimate some other liquid hydrocarbon fuel producers by price reductions (be they crude or refined sources). Wait till you see a fuel source war once a new hydrocarbon fuel source that is recyclable comes to market and completely by-passes crudes. That could eventually floor all crude oil producers of any sought. Price will be the only weapon for crude suppliers. Versus environmental and climate stabilities offered through a recyclable and affordable new-source for liquid hydrocarbon fuels.

As usual, profit levels rule the roost!

Happy Energy-Source Daze! - Art :popcorn:
 
MurrayM said:
An interesting read from a global perspective;

Age of Oil Ending?
Click to expand...

Dwell on this! – Art

How Much Should We Leave in the Ground?
Here are some estimates for how much fossil fuel we can use, and a call for a global moratorium on new prospecting.

By George Monbiot. Published on the Guardian’s website, 6th May 2009.

The two papers on carbon emissions published in Nature last week were ground-breaking: they show us how much carbon dioxide we can produce if we’re to have a reasonable chance of preventing two degrees of global warming. It’s a completely different approach from the UN’s and national governments’. They set targets for reductions by a certain date but have nothing to say about the total amount of carbon we can release.

One of the papers, by Myles Allen and others(1), suggests that we can burn, at most, another 400-500 billion tonnes of carbon at any time between now and the extinction of humanity if we want to avoid two degrees of warming. The other, by Malte Meinshausen and others(2), suggests that producing 1000 billion tonnes of CO2 between 2000-2050 would give us a 25% chance of exceeding two degrees. That’s a lot less than Allen’s estimate, as one tonne of carbon produces 3.667 tonnes of CO2 when it’s burnt: 1000 billion tonnes of CO2 arises from 273 billion tonnes of carbon.

But let’s err on the side of valour and use Allen’s figures. Moreover, let’s disregard all other greenhouse gases (which, he suggests, should reduce the total CO2 budget to under 400 billion tonnes).

How does his maximum allowance of carbon compare with known reserves of fossil fuel?

Let me make two things clear before I make this calculation. First, reserves are not the same as resources. A resource is the total amount of a mineral found in the earth’s crust. A reserve is the part of the resource which has been identified, quantified and is cost-effective to exploit. In most cases this is likely to be a small percentage of the total resource. Secondly, there is some controversy over the official figures for fossil fuel reserves. This is especially the case for oil, as the members of OPEC are extremely secretive about how much they possess. But for the sake of argument, let’s take them at face value.

According to the World Energy Council:

global reserves of coal amount to 848 billion tonnes(3)

global reserves of natural gas are 177,000 billion cubic metres(4)

global reserves of crude oil are 162 billion tonnes(5)

Because the calculations are much harder and the quantities involved less certain, I am ignoring unconventional sources of fossil fuel, such as tar sands, oil shales, bitumens and methane hydrates, as well as liquid natural gas resources.

On average, one tonne of coal contains 746 kg carbon(6)

One cubic metre of natural gas contains 0.49 kg carbon(7)

The figure for oil is less certain, because not all of its refinery products are burnt. But the rough calculation here(8) suggests that the use of a barrel of oil releases 317kg of CO2. Depending on the density of the oil, there are roughly 7 barrels to the tonne, giving an approximation of 2219kg CO2, or 605kg of carbon.

So the carbon content of official known reserves of coal, gas and oil amounts to:

848 x 0.746 = 633
+
177,000 x 0.00049 = 87
+
162 x 0.605 = 98

Total conventional fossil fuel reserves therefore contain 818 billion tonnes of carbon.

Even ignoring all unconventional sources and all other greenhouse gases and taking the most optimistic of the figures in the two Nature papers, we can afford to burn only 61% of known fossil fuel reserves between now and eternity.

Or, using Meinshausen’s figure, we can burn only 33% between now and 2050. Sorry – 33% minus however much we have burnt between 2000 and today.

So the question which arises is this: which fossil fuel reserves will we decide not to extract and burn? There is, as I have argued before(9), no point in seeking to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels unless we also seek to reduce their production. Yet, apart from the members of OPEC (who do it only to shore up the price), no government is attempting to limit the amount of fuel extracted. Far from it; they all pursue the same strategy as the United Kingdom: to “maximize economic recovery”(10).

The test of all governments’ commitment to stopping climate breakdown is this: whether they are prepared to impose a limit on the use of the reserves already discovered, and a permanent moratorium on prospecting for new reserves. Otherwise it’s all hot air.

References:
1. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08019.html
2. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08017.html
3. http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/survey_of_energy_resources_2007/coal/627.asp
4. http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/survey_of_energy_resources_2007/natural_gas/664.asp
5. http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/survey_of_energy_resources_2007/crude_oil_and_natural_gas_liquids/638.asp
6. http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
7. http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
8. http://numero57.net/?p=255
9. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/12/11/rigged/
10. http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file39387.pdf
 
MurrayM said:
An interesting read from a global perspective;

Age of Oil Ending?
Click to expand...

Read the article. They play pretty fast and loose with the facts. They list all these cities and places that are 100% renewable energy. What they fail to metion is that while they can produce an amount of renewable energy equal to annual consumption, they are still unable to cover high demand periods and low production periods such as night and calm wind periods. They also imply that reduction of USA petroleum based electric generation declined in the last 35 years as a result of renewable energy. When in reality the reduction was caused by coal and natural gas being far more economical than fuel oil. Whole thing kind of reminded me of Obama's state of the union address, taking credit for increased oil production in the USA (some thing he was opposed to).

Ted
 
O C Diver said:
Read the article. They play pretty fast and loose with the facts.
Click to expand...

I said it was interesting, not gospel.

I don't blindly believe Big Oil or Big Greens, finding the truth usually resides in the middle.

Thanks for those links Art.
 
MurrayM said:
I don't blindly believe Big Oil or Big Greens, finding the truth usually resides in the middle.
Click to expand...

Being a slender Green (Ted Green) I won't take offense to that. :rolleyes:

Ted
 
MurrayM said:
I said it was interesting, not gospel.

I don't blindly believe Big Oil or Big Greens, finding the truth usually resides in the middle.

Thanks for those links Art.
Click to expand...

I don't believe big oil either...

I just want their jobs.

I certainly don't believe big green.

I've actually been to ANWR. :rolleyes:
 
Several years ago I was producing a biofuel video to support an exhibit at an airshow. One of the reports I was given by one of the company's subject matter experts contained a study of what it would take to power the island of Manhattan with wind power.

What it would take, the study concluded after doing all the math, is that the entire state of Connecticut would have to be evacuated, the entire state denuded of trees and all existing structures, and the entire state covered with the highest output wind turbines available at the time. The entire state, solid wind turbines, border to border.

Then the wind would have to blow 35 mph 24/7/365

If all this was done, then Manhattan's electrical needs could be provided by wind power.
 
Marin said:
If all this was done, then Manhattan's electrical needs could be provided by wind power.
Click to expand...

If only they could power it with all the hot air from some of their past Senators!

HOLLYWOOD
 
To the forum.

I have just completed the full reading of this thread. Being familiar with the current world news regarding the oil situation I would like to say thanks to all of your contributors. While there are differences in opinions, the level of conversation brings a comfortable tone in the readings.
Often as you read articles the comments following are so gross in spite, vengeance, negativity that one wonders how two people can pass on a street without an effort to kill each other! To read what six pages of intelligent conversion is a win.
(A shout out to the moderator to bring the focus back to the subject and not politics.This from one who has been taken to the wood shed himself)

Al-Ketchikan (Bridge to Nowhere)Alaska
 
AS the EU breaks up , the depression will lessen even more the world demand for oil.

AS the Euro debt is canceled , Money will become more valuable , lowering the price of oil even more.

One has to wonder how Russia will react?
 
ksanders said:
I don't believe big oil either...

I just want their jobs.

I certainly don't believe big green.

I've actually been to ANWR. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Me too. Great frozon desert huh! Now our Loser and Chief O is trying to classify ANWR as wilderness......
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction said:
Me too. Great frozon desert huh! Now our Loser and Chief O is trying to classify ANWR as wilderness......
Click to expand...

How can you call someplace a wilderness that has four wheeler tracks and trails all over it?

What people do not realize is that the people of Kaktovik, travel far and wide in their four wheelers and snow machines.

The four wheelers especially leave tracks that will never go away. You can see those tracks everywhere.
 
ksanders said:
How can you call someplace a wilderness that has four wheeler tracks and trails all over it?

What people do not realize is that the people of Kaktovik, travel far and wide in their four wheelers and snow machines.

The four wheelers especially leave tracks that will never go away. You can see those tracks everywhere.
Click to expand...

If this keeps up, it will be illegal for a caribow to take a dump in ANWR....

Hey Kev, remember when the enviromental wacos stated the Bou would never go under the pipeline and thus the Bou would all be dead in 10 years......:rofl:
 
It could be Australia is attempting " a Saudi" with iron ore; export quantities to China are up but prices are lower. Or a desperate attempt to maintain cash flow from a falling commodity.
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction said:
If this keeps up, it will be illegal for a caribow to take a dump in ANWR....

Hey Kev, remember when the enviromental wacos stated the Bou would never go under the pipeline and thus the Bou would all be dead in 10 years......:rofl:
Click to expand...

Yep I remember.

I also remember summer before last being surrounded by a herd of thousands of Caribou, and getting out of my truck and standing in the middle of that herd for probably an hour as it crossed the road. I remember the wild animal smell, the clicking sounds their hoofs make when they walk, and the sounds of their snorting as they breath.

Aren't these the same Caribou they all said would not exist if we drilled for oil in the Prudhoe? Possibly that was a different herd or something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Gauge question
Replies
15
Views
1K
Eli27
E
boomerang
Questionable survey?
2 3
Replies
60
Views
5K
mvweebles
mvweebles
E
Lehman sp120 oil consumption
Replies
19
Views
1K
ronobrien
R
M
Buying boat with Volvo TMD40A's
Replies
13
Views
1K
Bob M
B
RickyD
Naiad stabilizers seem frozen
Replies
16
Views
2K
Insequent
Insequent

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom