aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Relation between Nuclear deal & Crude oil price! Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Relation between Nuclear deal & Crude oil price!" Watch "Relation between Nuclear deal & Crude oil price!" New topic
Author

Relation between Nuclear deal & Crude oil price!

Mandar Khire
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 11, 2007
Posts: 504

As nuclear deal between India(the most populous democracy in the world) & USA(has the world's largest national economy) is in full swing in both countries & many countries involve in that. At same time crude oil price goes down. Many people says by increase of usage of non conventional energy this happen.
What java rancher think about this? If we thinking about global warming due to pollution of conventional energy, then we should not forget nuclear energy also create pollution( i think so).
[ August 05, 2008: Message edited by: Mandar Khire ]

Millions saw the apple fall, but Newton asked why.
Marc Peabody
pie sneak
Sheriff

Joined: Feb 05, 2003
Posts: 4727

Oil was going up and up because speculators thought that "sweet" crude was used to make pie.

They were corrected recently and now the demand for pectin is through the roof!!!


A good workman is known by his tools.
Pat Farrell
Rancher

Joined: Aug 11, 2007
Posts: 4659
    
    5

The only short term power source without heavy carbon problems is fission nuclear. If we need power in the US, China and India (let alone the rest of the world) and if we don't want to use oil from unstable countries or worse, use coal, then we have no short term choice. Nuclear fission is it.

It may work well as a holding pattern until someone smart can make other stuff work, say solar, wind, fusion, etc.

Its silly to say that nuclear is bad, and then ignore the huge ecologic destruction done by coal mining, let alone coal burning.

Ditto for oil, its bad enough that we burn it, its worse that we give money to thugs and bums.
marc weber
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 11343

Lately I've been into bread pudding. But I like pie also.


"We're kind of on the level of crossword puzzle writers... And no one ever goes to them and gives them an award." ~Joe Strummer
sscce.org
Chetan Parekh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 3636
Originally posted by Mandar Khire:
As nuclear deal between India(the most populous democracy in the world) & USA(has the world's largest national economy) is in full swing in both countries & many countries involve in that. At same time crude oil price goes down. Many people says by increase of usage of non conventional energy this happen.
What java rancher think about this? If we thinking about global warming due to pollution of conventional energy, then we should not forget nuclear energy also create pollution( i think so).

[ August 05, 2008: Message edited by: Mandar Khire ]


Read this and this articles to have more details.


My blood is tested +ve for Java.
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 13, 2000
Posts: 1936
Originally posted by Pat Farrell:
..its bad enough that we burn it, its worse that we give money to thugs and bums.


Totally with you on that one!


[ flickr ]
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1390
Speculators are necessary to keep the market liquid -- so that buyers can find sellers quickly and vice-versa. However, huge instabilities occur when people speculate with borrowed money -- this is called "buying on margin."

If you borrow money to invest and the price rises, you make lots of profits. If the price begins to fall, then your loan collateral loses value and you don't have the resources to add to your collateral, the lender will force you to sell at a loss before the price declines further.

When lots of people do this, the price is bid up fast by many "buyers" who don't actually have the money to make the purchase (except after the fact when they sell at a profit) -- hence you get bubbles in the market. When the price begins to decline, then all these "buyers" suddenly have to sell fast, and the price _plunges_ -- throwing speculators who couldn't sell fast enough into bankruptsy, and maybe also the lenders who lent them the money. We saw this happen with stocks in 1929, and with housing during this decade.

When people started speculating in commodities it drove the price of oil up fast. But as soon as the price drops, many of those who bought on margin must sell fast, causing a bigger price plunge. That's the only reason the price goes from $120/barrel to $150/barrel and then back to $120/barrel all within a few months with only fairly small changes to the levels of production and consumption.

In reality, the price should rise until the amount of oil people are willing to buy falls to the amount currently being produced.

Little changed, fundamentally, after the oil shocks of the 1970s. There were few good alternate sources of fuel, and the oil companies drilled for more oil until the price dropped. Even when prices were high, little money was put into long-term research because people knew that the mideast oil producers could always pump as much as necessary to put the providers of alternate energy out of business.

Now, however, research has more potential. Silicon cell production is cheaper. Microprocessors can orient solar panels to face the sun, or windmills to face the wind. Genetic engineering may provide us with bacteria that can digest cellulose to make ethynol, or with algae to produce oil directly. Experience building off-shore oil rigs may give us the ability to harness the power of waves and tides. Battery technology developed for mobile computers is making electric cars practical, finally. Nuclear power may not be the final answer, but at least we now know how to make reactors that are not at risk of melting down should they malfunction.

Perhaps equally important is that rising demand means that owners of easily pumped mideast oilfields can no longer pump enough oil to put alternate energy projects out of business.

The energy problem will be solved. The big shortage of the 21st century is more likely to be water and land, due to population growth.

My prediction is that population growth will be stopped by a combination of plagues and war. Antibiotic-resistant germs will proliferate. A culture that instills in people a love of death and violence in the interests of expanding that culture's dominance will expand for a while; then two would-be leaders of that culture will declare each other heretics, and all the thirst for blood and vengeance that they promoted in order to conquer outsiders will be released upon themselves in a civil war -- resulting in unprecedented levels of killing.
Pat Farrell
Rancher

Joined: Aug 11, 2007
Posts: 4659
    
    5

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Little changed, fundamentally, after the oil shocks of the 1970s. There were few good alternate sources of fuel, and the oil companies drilled for more oil until the price dropped.


Even today, there is no shortage of oil. There is a shortage of cheap oil. If the price stayed above $150/bbl for a long time, two things would happen:

1) folks would stop wasting so much
2) folks with oil would find more.

In the US, the politicians talk about an energy crisis, and like in the 1970s, there is no crisis. There is a modest shortage, which has caused prices to go up. This is economics 101.

However, the US politicians are looking for votes, and thus want to lower the price of gas/petrol quickly. I predict that the prices will go down some, but they are never going to be $20/bbl again. Unless China and India stop their population growth, and their economic growth.

So its time to get used to expensive energy (which is good for the environment) and get the smart scientists and engineers to find some alternatives. They will not be cheap, but they may be a lot better for the world.
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1390
Originally posted by Pat Farrell:


Even today, there is no shortage of oil. There is a shortage of cheap oil.
...
Same thing. (It's sort of like the shortage of software professionals ...)

I predict that the prices will go down some, but they are never going to be $20/bbl again. ... So its time to get used to expensive energy (which is good for the environment) and get the smart scientists and engineers to find some alternatives. They will not be cheap, but they may be a lot better for the world.
Once we get to the point that we can replace oil with solar/wind/tidal/algae, further technical developments spurred by competition might bring energy prices down the equivalent of $20/bbl oil. But that won't happen until we gain significant experience with large-scale use of those technologies.

Because sufficient oil to satisfy our energy needs will never again be sold for $20/bbl, people with money can finally start investing in new technology research. Of course, if research and experience eventually gets us to the point that we can produce energy as cheaply as $20/bbl oil, then whatever oil can still be pumped at that price will continue to be pumped and sold. Eventually, however, alternate sources will become cheaper than the cheapest oil, and then oil will only be pumped for making things that require petroleum specifically, e.g. plastics, vasoline, drugs.
Jules Bach
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 28, 2008
Posts: 71
to someone who posted above...Nuclear Energy is not the solution..

If the world replaced all coal fired plants with fission energy plants, we have enough uranium for about 12 years (of course..a simplistic argument can be made that it's a short term solution for developed countries...its long term nightmare for the next generation however)

Furthermore..uranium has to be refined before it can be used as a fuel. the whole refinement requires the use of fossil fuels.....building Nuclear power plants (they are quite tricky to build) also requires a significant amount of fossil fuels.

Some estimates put the C02 emissions per unit of energy from fission as about 2/3 that from a coal fired plants. Hardly a silver bullet...and the waste...ohh that's nasty stuff

Renewables is the only solution!

Pat Farrell
Rancher

Joined: Aug 11, 2007
Posts: 4659
    
    5

Originally posted by Jules Bach:
Renewables is the only solution!


Perhaps, but we need bridges to use between now and whenever they are invented and economical.

We have tons of coal, about 400 years of supply easily accessable. But coal is evil, its pure carbon, and mining it is a disaster.
Arvind Mahendra
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1162
speculation and other factors as many mentioned particular the dollar losing its purchasing power and the Yen getting stronger - as Japan is pretty much where speculators go to borrow money at dirt cheap int. rates.

I think it's also has to do with what time of year it is. Oil is used extensively to heat homes the world over, the dip should go away soon in a few months. Lets also hope there isn't another war in the mid east as that would really screw things up.
[ August 09, 2008: Message edited by: Arvind Birla ]

I want to be like marc
Ulf Dittmer
Marshal

Joined: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 42950
    
  72
Originally posted by Arvind Birla:
I think it's also has to do with what time of year it is. Oil is used extensively to heat homes the world over

What are you talking about, man? It's 90F/32C outside, nobody in their right mind is heating their homes. There must be a different explanation.
Arvind Mahendra
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1162
Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:

What are you talking about, man? It's 90F/32C outside, nobody in their right mind is heating their homes. There must be a different explanation.


when did I say they were? OP mentioned something about crude oil prices going down, I was speculating that it was temporary (seasonal) as the demand for oil should rise in the winters so the strange dip in prices should correct.
[ August 09, 2008: Message edited by: Arvind Birla ]
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1390
Originally posted by Jules Bach:
to someone who posted above...Nuclear Energy is not the solution..

If the world replaced all coal fired plants with fission energy plants, we have enough uranium for about 12 years (of course..a simplistic argument can be made that it's a short term solution for developed countries...its long term nightmare for the next generation however)

Furthermore..uranium has to be refined before it can be used as a fuel. the whole refinement requires the use of fossil fuels.....building Nuclear power plants (they are quite tricky to build) also requires a significant amount of fossil fuels.

Some estimates put the C02 emissions per unit of energy from fission as about 2/3 that from a coal fired plants. Hardly a silver bullet...and the waste...ohh that's nasty stuff

What is the comparison between the fossil fuel needed to build a nuclear plant versus the fossil fuel needed to build a coal plant? Why can't nuclear-generated energy be used to refine nuclear fuel? What about the regeneration of nuclear fuel from nuclear waste via the "breeder reactor"?

Also, nuclear technology can be used to solve the overpopulation problem. Chernobel(sp?) was once a dirty industrial area; now it's a wildlife park! (We could use nuclear waste to save the Brazilian Rain Forest from development.)
[ August 11, 2008: Message edited by: Frank Silbermann ]
Jules Bach
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 28, 2008
Posts: 71
What is the comparison between the fossil fuel needed to build a nuclear plant versus the fossil fuel needed to build a coal plant? Why can't nuclear-generated energy be used to refine nuclear fuel? What about the regeneration of nuclear fuel from nuclear waste via the "breeder reactor"?


Part of the energy cost of refinement is transport. EG. moving the fuel from Australia to the UK still requires fossil fuels. Many of the other energy requirements (such as construction and security) also cannot be directly powered by nuclear energy.

Dealing with the waste also has huge transport costs..ongoing ones.


Also, nuclear technology can be used to solve the overpopulation problem. Chernobel(sp?) was once a dirty industrial area; now it's a wildlife park! (We could use nuclear waste to save the Brazilian Rain Forest from development.)


Overpopulation problem? Simple things like giving up meat might make the burden of 6 billion people easier to cope with.

Dumping nuclear waster in the rain forest...to save the rainforest?! you must be kidding!

Chernobyl can be tolerated by migratory animals only (because they leave the area quickly)..Ukraine still has the highest rate of thyroid cancer in the world despite it being very rare everywhere else...

the list goes on!

"Nuclear Power is not the answer" - check it out on amazon

Pat Farrell
Rancher

Joined: Aug 11, 2007
Posts: 4659
    
    5

Originally posted by Jules Bach:
you must be kidding!

Chernobyl


He was kidding. But Nuke is the answer. Chernobyl was an inept design, it was know for being unsafe, but it was cheap, and the Soviets had no money. No one has used that design in 40+ years.

To all the folks that say "no nukes, no offshore, no coal" I have to ask, OK, what's the alternative that can deliver the needs of the US, Europe, India and China?

It quickly becomes an overly constrained problem with no solution.
Nitin Nigam
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: 129
Originally posted by Pat Farrell:


However, the US politicians are looking for votes, and thus want to lower the price of gas/petrol quickly. I predict that the prices will go down some, but they are never going to be $20/bbl again. Unless China and India stop their population growth, and their economic growth.


Well i am offended by this remark. India and China are biggest in terms of population but they are way behind US when it comes to oil consumption.
http://specials.rediff.com/money/2008/jul/24slide2.htm


Nothing is impossible; for those who doesnt have to do it themselves.
myjotting.blogspot.com
Ulf Dittmer
Marshal

Joined: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 42950
    
  72
Originally posted by Nitin Nigam:
India and China are biggest in terms of population but they are way behind US when it comes to oil consumption.

That's not in dispute. But what's relevant for movements of the oil price are the future changes in demand, and both China's and India's usage of oil is rising faster than the USA's. It's about relative numbers, not absolute numbers. Maybe you missed the part "Unless China and India stop their population growth, and their economic growth."?
[ August 11, 2008: Message edited by: Ulf Dittmer ]
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1390
Originally posted by Jules Bach:


Overpopulation problem? Simple things like giving up meat might make the burden of 6 billion people easier to cope with.
I disagree. Cattle use up so many natural resources (land, water) as it is. They would use far more resources if we let those animals live out their natural lifespan, and to breed freely without culling their population growth. We save a lot more food by killing and eating them than by, say, using their bodies as fertilizer after their natural deaths.

Worse yet, if we stopped eating meat then the vaqueros might simply exterminate the herds, or abandon them to die of starvation. I'd feel guilty eating a carrot, knowing that I was partly responsible for that.


Dumping nuclear waster in the rain forest...to save the rainforest?! you must be kidding!

It would serve them right -- those people who slash and burn for short-term profits.


Chernobyl can be tolerated by migratory animals only (because they leave the area quickly)..
That doesn't sound plausible. I cannot imagine an ecosystem containing migratory animals only. What is more likely is that wild animals are likely to die of disease or predation long before they have a chance to get cancer. In any case, most animals have far more offspring than there is room for, on the grounds that most of them will be eaten by other animals before maturity. So if 25% of the young get cancer, those are simply the ones that will get eaten first.


Ukraine still has the highest rate of thyroid cancer in the world despite it being very rare everywhere else...
Well, we have to keep humans out of the Rain Forest. Except for the stone age Indians, of course. But what I said about the wild animals near Chernobyl also applies to the death rate among paleolithic peoples.
Jules Bach
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 28, 2008
Posts: 71
I almost started to write a reply...then I realised you must be trying to wind me up.

I've always found it difficult to spot sarcasm..it's my superhero weakness.

Denmark...almost 20% of their energy from windfarms...respect
Pat Farrell
Rancher

Joined: Aug 11, 2007
Posts: 4659
    
    5

Originally posted by Nitin Nigam:
Well i am offended by this remark.

No offense was intended. I think that China and India will greatly increase their energy use as they advance to use as much energy per person as the US. That will put enormous pressure on world energy supplies.

The US can not plan to keep using five to ten times then energy per person as the rest of the world.
[ August 12, 2008: Message edited by: Pat Farrell ]
Nitin Nigam
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: 129
Originally posted by Pat Farrell:

No offense was intended. I think that China and India will greatly increase their energy use as they advance to use as much energy per person as the US. That will put enormous pressure on world energy supplies.

The US can not plan to keep using five to ten times then energy per person as the rest of the world.

[ August 12, 2008: Message edited by: Pat Farrell ]


No issues, i knew that your comment was not to intentionally offend anybody. My point was that, developing nations need energy to join the category of developed nations.

And to meet that extra demand, if country like US can reduce even 2-3% of their demand (by adopting efficient ways of using energy) a 10% increased demand by developing countries like India and China can be accommodated.
Ulf Dittmer
Marshal

Joined: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 42950
    
  72
My point was that, developing nations need energy to join the category of developed nations. And to meet that extra demand, if country like US can reduce even 2-3% of their demand (by adopting efficient ways of using energy) a 10% increased demand by developing countries like India and China can be accommodated.

It's not as simple as that. According to the article you posted, China and India consume the 2nd and 6th largest amount of oil, respectively, despite having only the 4th and 10th largest economy in terms of GDP. So, relatively speaking, oil consumption in these two countries is already ahead of their economic development.

There's certainly room for cutting consumption in developed countries, but given the rate at which China's and India's economy is growing, it's very doubtful that that will happen fast enough and far enough. So I concur with Pat's statement that oil prices will not be coming down anywhere close to where they were 10 years ago.
Devesh H Rao
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 09, 2002
Posts: 687

Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:

It's not as simple as that. According to the article you posted, China and India consume the 2nd and 6th largest amount of oil, respectively, despite having only the 4th and 10th largest economy in terms of GDP. So, relatively speaking, oil consumption in these two countries is already ahead of their economic development.



I guess your description does not simplify it either... what everyone seems to be forgetting is that India and China amongst themselves have around 2/5'th of the world population so doing a straighforward per person consumption gives a very different picture.

Per person consumption is way below a developed country's per person average.

Energy consumption is a major hindrance to development as it stands today and is far less than what is actually needed to fuel a billion people economy.
[ August 13, 2008: Message edited by: Devesh H Rao ]
Pat Farrell
Rancher

Joined: Aug 11, 2007
Posts: 4659
    
    5

Ignoring population growth (Everyone in the US, India and China stop having sex right now, including US Politicians), the energy growth will be stunning as India, China, and the rest of the developing world (say Africa) move to industrial economies.

Even modern farming requires huge amounts of energy, oil for fertilizer, fuel for tractors, combines, trucks, etc.

I don't believe that the world will run out of oil. I do believe that the world has already run out of $100/bbl oil. There is lots at $400/bbl, but its not clear how many folks will want it at that price. So without cheap oil, what are we going to do?


As Paris Hilton says in her video announcing she is runing for president against the old wrinkled white dude, we need to try everything. See what works.
Rambo Prasad
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 628
Will the Indo-US nuclear deal succeed..Will the NSG talks succeed..Looks like China is up as usual with a game plan to sabotage the deal..


Helping hands are much better than the praying lips
Rambo Prasad
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 628
Deal Done
Chetan Parekh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 3636
Originally posted by Rambo Prasad:
Deal Done


Despite of China

Lots of thanks to USA
Ulf Dittmer
Marshal

Joined: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 42950
    
  72
While this may be helpful for India, it's a bad day for nuclear non-proliferation, and thus for international security in general. Where's the incentive for countries like North Korea or Iran now to comply with the NPT?

Also, US Congress still needs to approve the deal, and whether or not it will do that is doubtful.
Devesh H Rao
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 09, 2002
Posts: 687

Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:
While this may be helpful for India, it's a bad day for nuclear non-proliferation, and thus for international security in general. Where's the incentive for countries like North Korea or Iran now to comply with the NPT?

Also, US Congress still needs to approve the deal, and whether or not it will do that is doubtful.


Nuclear non proliferation does not exist, we all know it, we just do not accept it.

As for the deal getting through congress, will not be surprised if folks from GE start hanging around capitol hill.
[ September 07, 2008: Message edited by: Devesh H Rao ]
Ulf Dittmer
Marshal

Joined: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 42950
    
  72
Nuclear non proliferation does not exist, we all know it, we just do not accept it.

Who is "we"? Please speak for yourself, or make it clear who you mean.
Pat Farrell
Rancher

Joined: Aug 11, 2007
Posts: 4659
    
    5

I'm not Devesh H Rao, so I can not say exactly what is meant.

But nuclear non-proliferation has been a joke for decades. Its theater. The Israeli, Indians, Pakistani and North Koreans proliferated. The Iranians are trying. The Liberians came close. The world probably doesn't know how many countries have the bomb, even if they know, the politicians are not willing to publish the information

All of the world sends their smart young folks to the US for schooling, and they learn. Making a working fission bomb is not very hard. Making a reliable and safe and small fusion bomb is hard, but not beyond a national effort.

You can do a huge amount of damage with a crude fission bomb, and if striking terror is the goal, there is no need to make it reliable or small.
Rambo Prasad
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 628
Where's the incentive for countries like North Korea or Iran now to comply with the NPT?


Unlike North Korea and Iran, India's responsible behavior and track record with regard to non proliferation is impeccable.India cannot be compared with other rogue countries.The very fact that NSG waiver was granted without much opposition endorses this fact.
[ September 08, 2008: Message edited by: Rambo Prasad ]
Rambo Prasad
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 628
Despite of China

Lots of thanks to USA [jumpingjoy]


Uncle Sam wants to build strategic relationship with India and wants to make India an effective counter weight to China.China is not able to digest this.
Devesh H Rao
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 09, 2002
Posts: 687

Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:

Who is "we"? Please speak for yourself, or make it clear who you mean.


We means what it is intented to mean, in this context anyone reading this thread.

I do not want to continue this discussion in here as political discussions are not allowed in JR and even if I would like to have a decent discussion regarding what I percieve to be the discriminatory nature of NPT and CTBT, I am sure this thread would get thrashed and hence I will not make the effort.

No offence meant to you Ulf, but we can agree to disagree on where we(you and me) stand on this issue close it on a genial note.
Devesh H Rao
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 09, 2002
Posts: 687

Originally posted by Pat Farrell:
I'm not Devesh H Rao, so I can not say exactly what is meant.

But nuclear non-proliferation has been a joke for decades. Its theater. The Israeli, Indians, Pakistani and North Koreans proliferated.



Pat, I wish you read events around 1965 Indo-China war, 1971 Indo-Pak war and the US/Chinese intervention at that time to know the events which lead to India's decision to go the nuclear way.

Even today a vast majority of indians would be the first to agree to disarm if the whole world disarms.

I personally am for complete disarmament(I do not count for much but still) rather than a partial disarmament which NPT and CTBT proposes.
Ulf Dittmer
Marshal

Joined: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 42950
    
  72
We means what it is intented to mean, in this context anyone reading this thread.

I suspected that's what you meant, but that's a rather presumptuous thing to do. As regards this thread, it's also patently false.

political discussions are not allowed in JR

Sure they're allowed. They just need to follow the Be Nice rule.

No offence meant to you Ulf, but we can agree to disagree

None taken. There's a difference between disagreement and insult.
[ September 08, 2008: Message edited by: Ulf Dittmer ]
Devesh H Rao
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 09, 2002
Posts: 687

Originally posted by Ulf Dittmer:

I suspected that's what you meant, but that's a rather presumptuous thing to do. As regards this thread, it's also patently false.
[ September 08, 2008: Message edited by: Ulf Dittmer ]


Tell me one thing, if we trace how any or all the nukes were built, can you with conviction claim there was no proliferation involved.

Oppenheimar was a german scientist I presume, Chinese built their based on soviet design, Pakistan got american and chinese help, India based theirs on russian input so on and so forth.

What you see as proliferation, I see as partnerships of convenience(incorrect on ethical basis but still practical in the given context)

As for the bolded part, can you tell what part of the thread do you think is false?
Chetan Parekh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 3636
Originally posted by Devesh H Rao:
What you see as proliferation, I see as partnerships of convenience(incorrect on ethical basis but still practical in the given context)


Than...



Now...

 
permaculture playing cards
 
subject: Relation between Nuclear deal & Crude oil price!