Monday, July 20, 2009

Mapping Peak Oil

David Strahan, the journalist and author of the peak oil tome The Last Oil Shock, has an interactive Oil Depletion Atlas:

david strahan's oil depletion atlas

You can roll over countries to get their peak oil output, their 2007 output, and their historical or (somewhat speculatively) projected year of peak production. For example, the United States peaked in 1970 with production of 11.5 million barrels/day; its 2007 production was 6.88 mb/d. According to Strahan:
There are currently 98 oil producing countries in the world, of which 64 are thought to have passed their geologically imposed production peak, and of those 60 are in terminal production decline. A few countries such as Iran, Libya, and Peru are anomalous in that although they are thought to have passed their production peak, their output is growing at the moment. However they are not expected to regain their previously-established highs. Other post-peak producers may also grow their production temporarily within a long-term downward trend. According to analysis by Energyfiles.com, another 14 countries could peak within the next decade. The numbers given here are a snapshot, and Energyfiles' forecasts are continuously updated in the light of emerging data.
Strahan's map shows that oil production in about 28 countries had yet to peak as of 2007. But a recent post at The Oil Drum inventoried the world's oil producers and found that, of 54 oil producing countries, production was growing in only 14 of them: Saudi Arabia, Canada, Algeria, Equatorial Guinea, China, United Arab Emirates, Brazil, Angola, Kazakhstan, Qatar, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Thailand, and Turkmenistan. Those countries represent less than 40% of global oil production.

Meanwhile, Gail the Actuary (best superhero name ever, by the way) has a post up today at TOD that gives a nice overview of the global oil production situation, complete with nice charts. Her take is that we've already passed the global peak in oil production, and she gives these main reasons:

1) World oil production is down in 2009.
2) The big run-up in oil prices from 2003-2008 was not matched by a rise in oil production.
3) An analysis of scheduled oil development projects, plus decline in older oil fields, points to an overall decline in production over the coming years.
4) OPEC wells are aging and are likely to decline soon. And
5) The Former Soviet Union seems unable to compensate for declining production elsewhere.

It's a very interesting analysis, and well worth the read. I am not personally sold on the notion that world oil production has peaked however (and you should remember that, as the president of the International Energy Agency, I am an expert on the matter). The problem is that there's just a huge amount of uncertainty about oil reserves in OPEC countries and their production capacity, both present and future. This is especially true of Saudi Arabia, the lynchpin of global oil production, which, given their role as chief donor of life-blood for the global economy, has been able to get away with being shockingly opaque about their reserves situation. Nonetheless, they clearly have some production capacity they're not currently using, as they significantly ramped down production when the economy went parasailing with a concrete board last fall. The question is how much extra capacity they have, and how likely is near-term decline in production from aging and gargantuan fields like Ghawar, and I don't think anyone who doesn't have the title of Prince or Chief Geologist for ARAMCO knows the answer to that question.

Still, the most worrisome element in Gail's analysis is that nettlesome #2. Oil prices soared for five straight years, far outside any price range that could be anticipated sans a severe OPEC cutback like those orchestrated in the 1970s. And in those same years production was simply flat, despite surging demand in China and India. I just don't see any way to account for this unless the flat production was due to constraints on global production capacity. And if there have been such constraints over the past half-decade or so, then if we haven't yet reached peak oil, we're certainly not far from it.

51 comments:

Andrew said...

Oil has historically tracked the price of gold at a ratio of 10 barrels crude oil = 1 troy ounce gold. (i.e. in the 1920's, oil = $2/barrel, gold = $20/ounce).

I'd suggest a lot of the price run up since 2003 in oil has to do with overall price inflation shown by the quadrupling of the price of gold. There certainly isn't a lot of worried talk about "peak gold" based on the price being so high.

"The big run-up in oil prices from 2003-2008 was not matched by a rise in oil production."

Not true. Production went from 76 in 2003 M barrels to 86M barrels in 2008. See here:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5521#more

The reason more oil was not pumped after 2005 was not so much that pumping capacity was not there but that higher prices encouraged conservation and eventually brought on a global recession.

Additionally, it takes many years for the effect of high prices to work there way down to production from new high priced sources due to the lag time to discover, drill, and pump new oil fields.

A bigger reason to think that oil production has not peaked is a comparison of American historic production to that of much of the rest of the world, especially OPEC and ex-Soviet Union. Despite not having much in the way of reserves, America is and has been one of the largest oil producers in the world, bested only by Saudi Arabia and Russia. The reason for this is intensive exploitation and exploration.

Just like American farming is vastly more productive than 3rd world farming, American oil production is more productive than OPEC and 3rd world oil production. The difference is applied capital, freedom and property rights. Landowners in many countries have no incentive to search for oil because all oil production is a state monopoly, and frequently the profits end up in the hands of a few plutocrats or princes. In America, if you find oil on your land, its yours.

The end of the oil age won't be because of a shortage of oil, but because of human innovation and changing economics and geopolitics.

Chachy said...

A bigger reason to think that oil production has not peaked is a comparison of American historic production to that of much of the rest of the world, especially OPEC and ex-Soviet Union. Despite not having much in the way of reserves, America is and has been one of the largest oil producers in the world, bested only by Saudi Arabia and Russia. The reason for this is intensive exploitation and exploration.

Just like American farming is vastly more productive than 3rd world farming, American oil production is more productive than OPEC and 3rd world oil production. The difference is applied capital, freedom and property rights.


All of which has given us... this. Hardly a persuasive case there, Andrew.

Richard said...

Hmm. That chart actually isn't very encouraging to me (I'm long oil). It took about 24 years to double to the peak, then roughly 36 years to slowly decline back to the output 60 years before. If the peak for world oil output is about now, if we double energy usage (from oil), we'd have to be 4 times more efficient in how we use oil...which actually isn't very unreasonable over a 36 year period. Of course, I don't know if doubling energy usage over 36 years is a reasonable assumption. Anyone know?

Andrew said...

Chachy:

American production is artificially constrained by the government forbidding the development of known reserves in Alaska, off Florida and California, etc. We aren't just talking ANWR either. Of course, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as the Arabs are willing to trade oil for colorful bits of paper festooned with green and black ink.

But that wasn't really my point. America has produced far more oil than its share of reserves suggests it should have been able compared to the middle east, Russia, Mexico, Africa, Venezeuala and other places with little respect for property rights and even less respect for mineral rights. Or rather, everyone else should be able to produce quite a bit more.

I'll put it this way. I've been paying attention to the coming oil "shortage" for 30 years, during which time I've heard incessantly that we only have 50 more years of oil. Well, 30 years have gone by, production is way up, and we still "only have 50 more years of oil."

Its the same with agirculture. Places like the Ukraine, Russia, Mongolia, the Sahel should be vast breadbaskets for the world like the American and Canadian midwest and plains. They can't match us because they have no respect for property rights. People without secure rights are not willing to invest in fertilizers, farm machinery, irrigation systems, and the like.

Same thing with oil wells. A lot of American production comes from small wells drilled on small properties. Very few other places in the world are like that. Surerly America is not "geologically exceptional" when it comes to how its oil fields are arranged?

Gus Snarp said...

I don't know when we'll run out of oil, but I know this, unlike agriculture, there is a finite amount of oil in the world and it takes millions of years to produce more. That means that at some point we WILL run out. Furthermore, there comes a point at which it takes more energy to extract the oil than can be gotten from burning it, at which point we may not be out of oil, but we might as well be. Finally, there are roughly 1.3 billion people in China. If you actually think that global oil supplies can sustain them when they start to live like we do (and they will), and still sustain us, you're living in a fantasy world. There is a reason we fight wars over oil - there's not enough of it to go around. The government figured that out around the time of World War I and it has driven US foreign policy ever since. But don't worry, if our oil supply lasts 50 years we'll be fighting over a much more important resource running out - fresh water.

Andrew said...

Gus Snarp:

"fighting over a much more important resource running out - fresh water"

The world is a closed system as far as water goes, and our "consumption" of it does not destroy it thanks to the water cycle. Because of this I have to laugh when I hear people claim we are "running out" of fresh water.

The world has lots of fresh water. If its not where you have chosen to live, you will probably have to move. But we will never use it all up.

Gus Snarp said...

Andrew - the world is a closed system as far as everything except energy goes, and even using energy does not destroy it (1st law of thermodynamics). Of course the 2nd law of thermodynamics kind of puts a damper on that energy not being destroyed business.

Anyway, more to the point, I used the term freshwater when I should have used the term usable fresh water. Much like oil, we take water from reservoirs (lakes and streams, but especially underground aquifers) much faster than it can be replenished. That wonderful American agriculture you are so proud of is rapidly depleting aquifers underlying the great plains, and when they run out it won't be about having enough water where you choose to live, it will be about famine, or at the very least very high prices for corn, wheat.

And whatever you may think, war over water is already here - why do you think Israel is willing to let Gaza go, but not the West Bank? Because it is the West Bank of the Jordan River - a large source of fresh water.

Gus Snarp said...

I really didn't mean to get off topic onto water, but here's an interesting thing to map: water shortages (or potential water shortages) versus economic growth (or available jobs) for the U.S. I expect that such a map would reveal a serious problem.

Andrew said...

"we take water from reservoirs (lakes and streams, but especially underground aquifers) much faster than it can be replenished."

Step back a second. What lakes, rivers, and streams are dropping in water level at the point of outflow because of the outflow?

Yes, we've used up the Colorado before it hits the sea. That hasn't stopped water from continuously flowing down from the Rockies. And Yes, NYC steals the waters of the Delaware, but the Lehigh Valley and Philadelphia have quite the superabundance of freshwater, even after ceding supplies to the multitudes of Manhattan.

"That wonderful American agriculture you are so proud of is rapidly depleting aquifers underlying the great plains"

I think that's rather overstating the case. 9% of the Ogalalla has been used up, and that only underlies a relatively small portion of the North American breadbasket between the Rockies and Appalachians.

Chachy said...

Richard - I would expect the price signature of oil supply constraints to be volatility rather than consistently higher prices, since high prices lead to a negative feedback: they cause recession, which destroys demand, leading to oversupply (albeit at a lower level than before). We're seeing this right now, as oil inventories are at record highs; more oil is being produced than can be consumed by the currently weak global economy. I wouldn't be surprised if prices crashed later this year to around $20-$30.

As for becoming 4X more efficient in our oil use... sounds damn near impossible to me, though new renewable energy sources can go at least some way towards bridging the gap. (For that matter, non-renewables like coal can help too, though that would entail other negative externalities. I.e., has it occurred to anyone that for all the excitement around electrifying our auto fleet, that amounts, at this point, to replacing oil as the fuel that runs our cars with the far dirtier and more global warming-intensifying coal? At least until our electrical grid is mostly run on nuclear/wind/solar, electric cars seem like a pretty misguided response to global warming).

Chachy said...

Andrew - America has produced far more oil than its share of reserves suggests it should have been able compared to the middle east, Russia, Mexico, Africa, Venezeuala and other places with little respect for property rights and even less respect for mineral rights. Or rather, everyone else should be able to produce quite a bit more.

Well, you cited the American example as reason to believe oil has not yet peaked. But the US peaked in 1970.

Compare this to OPEC, and Saudi Arabia in particular. Oil production there is mostly a government-run exercise - and this has had the result that their production has not yet peaked. They certainly could have produced more in the past if they had a bunch of US-style independent oil companies in competition with one another. But the result of that would have been bad for both them and us. It would have been bad for the Saudis because without constraints on production, there would have consistently been a glut of oil on the market, which would cause profits from oil production to approach zero. And it would have been bad for us because our addiction to cheap oil would have become all the more severe. (Of course, the OPEC-caused oil shocks of the 70s were bad for us, too, but at least they led to real gains in energy efficiency (until we decided to piss those gains away by building a bunch of suburbs and buying SUVs in the 90s, when oil was again very cheap)). And it would have been bad for everyone because their production might well have peaked some years ago and we'd already be well into the period of irreversible global decline in oil production.

As for Russia, their production actually peaked when it was still in the Soviet Union. And, as westexas is fond of pointing out, both Texas and the North Sea are two regions that have been "developed by private companies, using the best available technology, with virtually no restrictions on drilling" - and both peaked anyway. Or look at Mexico: production there has been declining dramatically because Cantarell, the second-largest oil field in the world, is pretty well being tapped out. Property rights have nothing to do with it.

As for this:

I'll put it this way. I've been paying attention to the coming oil "shortage" for 30 years, during which time I've heard incessantly that we only have 50 more years of oil. Well, 30 years have gone by, production is way up, and we still "only have 50 more years of oil."

I'm not sure what you're referring to. The issue isn't that we only have x remaining years of oil production; there will still be oil in the ground 100 and 200 and 10,000,000 years in the future. The peak oil thesis depends on the tendency of the rate of production of oil to start to decline when a given well, field, or group of fields has been roughly half-depleted. I personally suspect that will happen sometime in the next decade. Others think it has happened already. But very few people (mostly economists, as far as I can tell, rather than geologists, oil executives, or investment bankers) think it's 50 or more years away.

Richard said...

That theory of volatility of oil as it is depleted just doesn't work for me, since people can plan for steady depletion; you need shocks and squeezes (such as the formation of a cartel or credit shocks) to really gyrate the price of oil. Did the price of tin start to swing wildly as it became more expensive? Still, vol in oil is probably good for me.

Andrew said...

Chachy:

"and both peaked anyway"

Not what I was saying. I said America seems to have managed to produce far more from its relatively meager reserve resources on the oil front as compared to other countries with less freedom.

The fact that America is STILL in the top 5 of producing nations DESPITE the amount we have already produced is simply amazing if you stop to think about it.

"think it's 50 or more years away"

Again, not what I said.

30 years ago, world reserves divided by annual production were about 50 years remaining supply. They still are today. You can confirm this by looking through past editions of good reference books like the Goode's World Atlas (highly reccomended for all map affacianados).

My 1990 Goode's edition using numbers for 1988 has production = 20.153B barrels and reserves 846.2B barrels = 42 years reserves. We produce more every year today, and our current reserves are over 50 years supply.

Oil reserves are growing according to Goode's.

Chachy said...

But again, you have to appreciate the bell-shaped curve in production that characterizes peak oil production (for a field, a set of fields, or the whole world). It's not like we'll keep producing at the same rate for 50 years and then suddenly there won't be any more oil. When the oil's about half-gone, production rates decrease; so rather than flat production leading to an abrupt end 50 years hence, there will be a gradual decline, with some production continuing for well more than 50 years (provided there's an economic and infrastructural apparatus to support it).

But even this assumes that the major Middle Eastern OPEC producers are honestly reporting their reserves, and there's good reason to believe they're not. They are, as I say, very opaque about such stuff, and they have lots of incentive to have the world believe that their ultimate reserves are essentially limitless (wouldn't want the world to think it had to break its oil addiction any time soon, after all).

See this article for a chart that rather starkly juxtaposes the decline in new discoveries against the rise in production. And note how the picture has changed significantly since 1990.

Chachy said...

That article, which is by Jerome a Paris, also explains why we should be skeptical about OPEC claimed reserves, by the way.

Chachy said...

R - "Still, vol in oil is probably good for me."

I think you are probably underestimating the extent to which a decline in oil production is likely to undermine the very foundations of the global economy, which would be very bad for you indeed.

Richard said...

I think you're overestimating. Unless you can point out a resource where steady depletion has had a big disrupting effect on civilization, you're just speculating with very little evidence to back you up. If oil gradually increases in price, people will start taking public transportation or live closer to work, even if they don't like it as much. Pre-WWII, most people in the West were crammed in teeming cities and few people drove to work; somehow, civilization got by.

Andrew said...

Richard:

"you can point out a resource where steady depletion has had a big disrupting effect on civilization"

This is a classic about "peak wood". Like the Saudi Oil Minister Sheikh Zaki Yamani: "THE Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil."

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/03/262-wood-to-coal-transition.html

Peak wooder: We are so f*cked. Where are we going to get enough wood to meet demand? Everything we do -- our entire society is based on wood. We'll collapse without it.

Cornucopio: We'll switch to coal.

Peak wooder: Oh, yeah right. And monkeys are gonna fly out of my butt. You f*cking idiot. Our whole economy is based on cheap wood. Wagons, housing, tools, transport, shipping, cooking, packaging, heating, blacksmithing, furniture. We're doomed without it. Do you have any idea how foul coal is? And how far you have to go to get it? Where are you going to get the wood to move all that coal? For God sakes, wood just grows out of the ground, and you're proposing that we dig into solid rock for that filthy substandard junk? You need to up your medication. Do you have any idea how many people its going to take to dig those holes? And how are you going to make their houses, and keep them warm, and get them to the job without wood? What are you going to make their shovels and wagons out of? The only reason those people can dig coal now is because they're subsidized with cheap wood!!! And even supposing that you could marshall all those people you need to do the digging, you'll just hit water, and then it's game over. You can't bail out the water because YOU NEED WOOD TO MAKE THE F*CKING BUCKETS. Sorry man, but coal is nothing but a bunch of wishful thinking. You're pinning all your hopes on it because you're afraid to face the fact that our wood-based society is doomed. The stupid, myopic wood party is over and the hangover is going to be killer. There is simply nothing which can replace the convenience, versatility and cheapness of wood.

---------------------------

Some people have faith in human ingenuity and inventiveness to carry society forward, others are cheering for a mass die-off like the Dark Ages or Black Death.

Gus Snarp said...

Andrew - some of us just think that we should plan for the future instead of just letting it happen to us.

Think about the guy who invested in coal before that wood to coal transition.

Technological revolutions don't happen by themselves, those who realize they will be needed in the future and start working on them while it still seems crazy are the ones that enable us all to make the transition, and often get rich in the process.

Richard said...

Technological revolutions happen in a socioeconomic superstructure that incents invention and innovation where there is demand for said inventions.

Chachy said...

Richard - I refer you to Jared Diamond's Collapse for plenty of examples of societies that have failed due to resource over-consumption.

Andrew - I enjoyed the analogy. But there are enough important differences that the formulation of wood:coal::oil:whetever comes after oil doesn't quite work.

For one, wood is a renewable resource. Of course, at various times in history there have been problems related to the management of that resource. But the problems facing a hypothetical wood-based economy (and I say hypothetical because wood never really played the economic role that fossil fuels have since played) would never have been that the wood would simply have been depleted; forests, if wisely managed, could always regrow. So the idea of a "peak wood" theory doesn't make sense.

But also, note that you've framed this as a peak wooder vs. coal advocate. But ever since the use of coal launched the industrial revolution, it's been clear that the energy efficiency gains from using coal were enormous. We don't have any current prospects for replacing oil. Yes, some progress is being made on the wind and solar fronts, but those sources have yet to prove sufficiently scalable for driving the global economy. I have enough "faith in human innovation" that I think wind and solar can be made more scalable and more efficient over time, but how much time will be required for this is very much an open question.

But on a broader note, I would say this: human civilizations come and go all the time. There are periods of rise and periods of decline; Rome was an awesome power at one point, and a few centuries later it was sacked by barbarians. China was the world's leading power more most of human history until the last several centuries, an era of impoverishment from which it is just now emerging. And in many cases, resource depletion was the specific cause of decline (again, see Diamond). In none of these cases was human innovation sufficient to reverse the tendency towards decline.

You might even believe in like a Hegelian world-historical narrative by which civilization becomes increasingly refined and prosperous and sophisticated, but within that general pattern there will still be periods of local and temporary decline. Blithely insisting on the power of human innovation to overcome all obstacles ignores the many severe obstacles that have disrupted the march of progress throughout history. The transition from an oil-based economy to whatever is to come represents one such potential obstacle. As Gus Snarp says, acknowledging this sort of challenge is precisely the sort of foresight - you could even call it "theoretical innovation" if you want - that will be necessary to make the transition. Simply thinking the problem will take care of itself is, undoubtedly, the path that was taken by many societies throughout human history that ended in ruin.

Gus Snarp said...

There's also the Maya. There is significant archaeological evidence that resource depletion was the main cause of the collapse of Maya civilization.

Andrew said...

"For one, wood is a renewable resource."

Only where you don't destroy the soil in the process of deforestation.

Also, 50 years to return a plot to mature tree growth where good soil remains is a long time to "renew" a resource that is used up.

Chachy said...

With wise forest management - thinning rather than clear-cutting and so forth - the soil doesn't have to be depleted and wood can be harvested sustainably. Not that it always or even usually is, of course; but the challenge of managing wood, which grows back on a human timescale, is fundamentally different from managing a resource that is non-renewable and non-recyclable.

Richard said...

Yeah, I read Collapse. Jared Diamond can write, but his arguments aren't that great. You know what all those societies have in common? They're all isolated, have relatively small populations, and probably didn't have much idea about property rights and incentives. In general, bigger populations have had better success surviving as a civilization.

BTW, China would be a poor example to use to show a decline of a civilization. Back when China had the richest civilization in the world, the common (subsistance-farming) man was no better off than his counterpart in the early 20th century. The only difference is that those countries that experienced the industrial revolution blew past China in the quality-of-life and wealth measures. China was only relatively rich a thousand years ago and is only relatively poor these enturies when compared to the West.

Chachy said...

Richard - Here is a chart from Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers that shows industrial production in absolute terms from 1750-1900. In that time, industrial production in China fell from 8 to 3 (on a scale on which the UK in 1900 = 100). India fell from 7 to 1.

The point of the China example is that declines happen, and these numbers bear that out.

Richard said...

Oh right, from 1750 onward (when the Qing dynasty started going downhill). There are definite valleys and peaks (China's seen a lot of them; pretty much every time a major dynasty rose and fell, while Europe probably didn't reach the peak of the Romans until the Industrial Revolution was about to start (and reached the nadir of the Dark Ages). Still, the secular trend is upward, mainly because once a civilization became a farming society, it was unlikely to slip back to hunter-gather, and no civilization (other than those that tried to acheive a totalitarian Communist paradise) has slipped backwards for any length of time after hitting the Industrial Revolution.

Dieran Information said...

I feel pretty good .. I take a lot of information and a lot of knowledge from here and with just a few moments I could take the conclusions .. thanks

computer software said...

I will be the subscriber pages of this website, .. because what you write really make my knowledge grow ...


student loan|Contextual links|home improvement ideas

student loan said...

chance I was looking for on this topic, thanks for sharing ...

student loan said...

Hello, I just stopped by your blog and wanted to say hi. I noticed You have a lot of really great content here, I’ll be back soon, thanks a lot for posting!


Contextual links|home improvement

Pet Rabbit Supplies said...

already visited a few times it did not seem to ever get bored seeing this web ..


World cup Wallpaper|News Techno

adeo said...

waiting for your next article...

Home Management said...

This is one of the best post that I have ever read. You have provided a great piece of information. I will definitely share it with my other friends. Keep up the good work, I would to stay in contact with your posts.



Beasiswa s1

Bluetooth Headphones said...

visit, read the article, as well as leave comments on a good site like this site is a pleasure for me .. thank you for your helpful articles ...

Anonymous said...

This helps me to learn something new. Thanks to you!






Soccer Gear Soccer Merchandise

acne solution said...

thank you for presenting the news that I needed ,....

acne solution said...

thank you for presenting the news that I needed ,....

tn requin said...

sleeping bag
tablecloth
travel luggage
car gps
car parts
GPS navigation
portable GPS
lcd tv
flat tv
digital picture frames
unlocked cell phones
wedding dresses
wedding jewelry
chaussures mode
chaussures Femmes
women's shoes
round tablecloth
discount handbags
chaussures sport
chaussures pas cher
fashion bedding
id lanyard
lanyard
creative gadgets
gift ideas
kids wall stickers
wall stickers
bath curtains
kitchen faucet
bathroom faucet

dfadf said...

Microsoft Office
Office 2010
Microsoft Office 2010
Office 2010 key
Office 2010 download
Office 2010 Professional
Microsoft outlook
Outlook 2010
Windows 7
Microsoft outlook 2010

john said...

this is informative articles

roger vivier said...

We are offering you a chance to form long-term business partnerships with Oakley sunglasses outlet on sale 60% off,free shipping, an opportunity that you.The subversion of concept that cheap oakley radar glasses on glasses products is that it integrate the comfortable vzkjvnzk , practical, artistic of a sunglass in one.By having a tent such as this oakley frogskins Sunglasses Outlet Store, you might be wholly in the shade and guarded from your sun and wind in.

roger vivier said...

We are offering you a chance to form long-term business partnerships with Oakley sunglasses outlet on sale 60% off,free shipping, an opportunity that you.The subversion of concept that cheap oakley radar glasses on glasses products is that it integrate the comfortable vzkjvnzk , practical, artistic of a sunglass in one.By having a tent such as this oakley frogskins Sunglasses Outlet Store, you might be wholly in the shade and guarded from your sun and wind in.

Anonymous said...

Find not in how with the purpose of achieve a reverse phone lookup phone search or else a mobile phone lookup before yet a telephone number lookup search with the intention of hit upon absent who is behind with the intention of anyone with the intention of has been calling you this total instance ok.

Anonymous said...

I enjoy this nice reverse phone lookup before cellular phone search before telephone number search spot. I know how to be taught a lot of phone number lookup substance about swap telephone lookup here in the present day after I checked elsewhere this guide here.

checking said...

There is a reason we fight wars over oil - there's not enough of it to go around. The government figured that out around the time of World War I and it has driven US foreign policy ever since. But don't worry, if our oil supply lasts 50 years we'll be fighting over a much more important resource running out - fresh water. bohyme

checking said...

its a realy good posr freetress

human hair wigs said...

This is an amazing post. One of the best ones that I have ever come across.

Tyler Jones said...

It is a good thing that I came across this piece. Very well done.Keep posting!

Full Lace Wigs said...

Informative post!! thank you for sharing ti with us! looking forward to your next post!!

hadirlah.com said...

Thank you for your very nice article, do not forget to read my articles also kata kata bijak, kata kata cinta, kata kata romantis, kata kata motivasi and many other interesting articles on my blog that.