Consumer Energy Report is now Energy Trends Insider -- Read More »

By Robert Rapier on Oct 12, 2010 with 26 responses

The Gas Cartel Idea: On the Road to Another OPEC?

The following guest analysis was written by the staff of Global Intelligence Report.

————————-

As oil sees its image tarnished from the disastrous oil spills that took place off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Dalian, China, and as the most promising oil fields remain off limit to the Western oil majors, gas is gaining in popularity.

Gas is present in large quantities and in many countries of less questionable reputation such as in the United States and is also less harmful to the environment than oil. Though gas is not intended to replace oil, some gas-rich countries such as Russia and Iran are strongly advocating for a gas cartel to regulate the industry, which can explain the reluctance of Russia to adopt sanctions towards Iran at the United Nations as both countries heavily rely on the income generated by their natural resources.

When the 156th Meeting of the OPEC Conference ended in Vienna in March 2010, the idea of a gas cartel was still floating in the air.  The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is a 50 years old organization whose mission, according to Article 2 of its Statute, is to coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of its Member Countries and ensure the stabilization of oil markets in order to secure an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers and a fair return on capital for those investing in the petroleum industry.

Its members are Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.

In 2001 The Gas Exporting Countries Forum was established in Tehran, Iran. Though it isn’t an equivalent to OPEC, it is a venue for gas producing countries to meet.  Its members are Algeria, Bolivia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela.  Algeria, Iran, Nigeria, Qatar and Venezuela belong to both.

Interestingly, Russia is not part of OPEC as it never wanted any organization to monitor, control and regulate its output. In fact, Russia was taking advantage of OPEC self-imposed output reductions to increase its own output. In the second quarter of 2009, Russia exports rose to 7.4 million barrels per day against 7 billion barrels per day for Saudi Arabia.

What Benefits for Gas Users?

When the price of oil went skyrocketing OPEC did not react too promptly to alleviate the burden on oil consumers despite its stated commitment to economic supply to consumers. After all, every additional dollar to the price of a barrel results in billions in the bank at the end of the year for many oil-producing countries.

Few countries had excess capacity to offer to increase the offer in order to alleviate the out of control price escalation. Saudi Arabia, the only country that had then an excess capacity of about 2 million barrels per day and sufficient enough to cool down the market, dragged its feet when oil prices spiked out of control to reach almost $150 per barrel in the summer of 2008 and only released about 250,000 more barrels per day which did little at the time to put an end to this price inflation. In this context, one can wonder what gain end-users would get from the creation of a gas cartel operating in similar ways to OPEC.

Russia’s bad habits of cutting off gas when having disputes with its Ukrainian and Belarusian neighbors – through which transits respectively 80% and 20% of the gas going to Europe – has shown that Russia has no qualms about using energy as a political and economic pressure tool irrespective of the damage to its long-term public image.

Many member countries of OPEC are often the first ones to break the quotas such as Angola and Nigeria, the latter overproducing 300,000 barrels per day in December 2009. The result is that some countries end up having to produce more oil to offset the drop in price, pushing the price of oil further down. The lack of effective sanction mechanisms towards cheaters plagues OPEC and would probably plague a gas cartel, as no country would really want to be part of an organization sanctioning them too harshly.

It is also questionable to think that some countries would want any interference with what is for them a critical life supply of hard currency. For instance, Libya is known for doing what it feels like doing. Furthermore, it has signed some very promising contracts, notably with Italy to supply Europe via a Southern route that is very appealing to counterbalance the unpredictable Eastern route controlled by Russia.

Another country like Turkmenistan, said to hold the 4th or 5th largest world gas reserves has repeatedly put forward its neutrality status and would not want to get caught in political games that would undermine its status.  Also, after having been heavily dependent on the goodwill of Russia and on the Gazprom pipelines for the transit of its gas to Europe, which was interrupted for nearly nine months in 2009, it is doubtful Turkmenistan would want to be told how much it could supply China, which became a leading client after the opening in 2010 of a new pipeline linking Turkmenistan to China via Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Another factor to take into consideration is the huge infrastructure and equipment investments made by some countries to become leaders in the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) industry.  LNG is a revolution in the energy industry as long pipelines are no longer part of the equation, except to bring LNG to the tankers. Some countries have become leaders such as Algeria, Libya and Qatar. Others, such as Australia, Egypt, Nigeria and Norway are building up their export capabilities.

Gas Cartel coming soon to town?

In light of the above it is very doubtful that a gas cartel as structured as OPEC will become a reality. The inability to strictly enforce quotas and to sanction wrongdoers is little incentive for any rule-abiding country to become a member. The prevalence of individual interests with some of its members not abiding by the rules and decisions of the cartel has weakened the organization.

Furthermore, though OPEC members hold two thirds of world reserves, they only account for less than 40% of world oil, enabling a lot of other players to have an impact on the oil scene outside the framework of OPEC. The Gas Exporting Countries Forum will remain, as it name states it a forum, but the creation of a legal structure is most doubtful and so is the ability of the existing members of the Forum to structure it into a well-operating international organization.

Originally published at http://www.globalintelligencereport.com/articles/The-Gas-Cartel-Idea-on-the-Road-to-Another-OPEC

  1. By perry on October 12, 2010 at 7:08 am

    It wouldn’t take much to form a gas cartel. Russia and Iran hold more than 40% of reserves. If they hit the shut-off valves, they can pretty much demand whatever price they choose. Not that Mutt and Jeff would do that. LOL.

     

    Natural gas will be depleted 20 years after the oil is gone. 2068 or so. That’s with current consumption rates, which will more than double by then. The US is currently blessed with a 100 yr. supply. But, we’ll gladly export our share when the price is right. And, we’ll be just as screwed as everyone else by about 2030.

    [link]      
  2. By seema on October 12, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Natural gas will be depleted 20 years after the oil is gone. 2068 or so.

    [link]      
  3. By Kit P on October 12, 2010 at 9:06 am

    No! But why use one
    word what you can fear monger in a 1000 words. The reason the answer
    is no is the world wide abundance of coal, uranium, and thorium.

     

    NG is an expensive
    fuel because of the cost of getting it to where it is needed and when
    it is needed. What is the delivered cost.

    [link]      
  4. By perry on October 12, 2010 at 10:47 am

    Kit P said:

    The reason the answer
    is no is the world wide abundance of coal, uranium, and thorium.

     


     There was world wide abundance of oil and natural gas not so long ago Kit. Fossil fuels are finite. When one is gone, the use of others will increase. 20 years ago, the world had 200 years worth of coal. Now, we have 100 years worth. It’s not fuzzy math. It’s increased consumption. Fossil fuels will soon be depleted. Two or three generations at most. Thankfully, we won’t hit peak sun or peak wind for centuries to come.

    [link]      
  5. By Wendell Mercantile on October 12, 2010 at 11:27 am

    Rufus~

    I’m curious, why do you think the Corn Belt states have never tried to form a corn ethanol cartel to establish quotas and set a price? It seems as though the NCGA, RFA, and GE, as well as states such as Iowa and Minnesota should be interested in controlling output and sanctioning wrong doers.

    [link]      
  6. By OD on October 12, 2010 at 11:28 am

    Natural gas will be depleted 20 years after the oil is gone. 2068 or so.

    Oil won’t be gone in 2048. For that to be the case, production would have to stay at peak rates before going to zero, and we all know that isn’t the case. Now if you meant to say oil exports will be approaching zero by then, well you might be right. There will still be oil being produced 100 years from now, just not anywhere near the level we need for BAU.

    If methane clathrates are able to be produced, a gas cartel would be irrelevant.

    [link]      
  7. By Wendell Mercantile on October 12, 2010 at 11:57 am

    Oil won’t be gone in 2048. For that to be the case, production would have to stay at peak rates before going to zero, and we all know that isn’t the case.

    Absolutely right OD. Natural gas won’t be gone either, natural gas is always forming in landfills, and we have billions of tons of the stuff locked up in methane clathrates under the oceans.

    Even 200 hundred years from now we’ll still have oil. It will be very expensive, and hopefully we will be well past using it for transportation fuels, but it will still have its uses — especially as a chemical feedstock.

    Even today there is still a market for whale oil and a handful of specialized uses for which whale oil is still the best lubricant — particularly in precision instruments.

    [link]      
  8. By paul-n on October 12, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    I’m not sure what the big deal is here, at least, from a north american point of view.  North America is gas self sufficient and can be for quite some time (just at a price).

    Russia already acts like a cartel with its supply to Europe, as will Iran if it is piping gas.

    International trade, as LNG, is relatively small, and the main customers are all in Asia (China, Japan, S. Korea)

    If NG is not used as an energy source, and just as petrochemical feedstock, there is enough to last centuries.  If a cartel tries to restrict trade, the gas importing countries will start to shift back to coal wherever possible, and there is no coal cartel, yet.

    Agree with Kit that we will see lots more nuclear, where, oddly enough, there is already a “cartel” of sorts with the IAEA.  At least with nuclear (and coal) it is not the middle east states that have most of it – once the oil age is over, so are they.

     

     

    [link]      
  9. By Benny BND Cole on October 12, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    The essential underlying premise of all energy doom-mongering is that the price signal is mute.

    [link]      
  10. By rrapier on October 12, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    The essential underlying premise of all energy doom-mongering is that the price signal is mute.

    But the essential premise of cartels is that they manipulate those price signals by restricting product. OPEC has done it for years.

    RR

    [link]      
  11. By Kit P on October 12, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    “Thankfully, we won’t hit peak sun or peak wind for centuries to come.”

     

    Sorry Perry, I have some really bad news for you.  Peak wind and solar happened a couple of hundred years ago with the advent of the industrial revolution, thank you very much James Watt.  

     

    Water, wind, and solar are very finite energy resources.  More often than not, the finite level is zero.  If you happen to depend on wind and solar to stay alive, you will die.  Sorry for more bad news.  If you think that you can store the energy you need in a battery, you will die.  

     

    A few smart people produce the food and energy Perry needs.  Everyone else who is not quite as smart explains that it is not being done correctly offering such obvious incorrect information as fossil fuel are ‘finite’.  

     

    “Two or three generations at most.”

     

    This implies a certain natural order of things.  People are born and people die.  They will figure it out, trust me on this.  The industrial revolution resulted in metallurgy that allowed Franklin stoves and nuclear reactors.  We will not be moving back to living in caves.  If you live in a rural area, you can heat with wood.  If you live in a large city, you can heat with nuclear power.

     

    So if you live in a large city and want your electricity to come from renewable energy, some of you will have to move to the country and become wind turbine hikers.  That is until your knees fail, how about peak knees (aka a funny looking dog)?

    [link]      
  12. By Optimist on October 12, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    But the essential premise of cartels is that they manipulate those price signals by restricting product. OPEC has done it for years.

    The question is: Have we seen the end of OPEC’s control? In 2008, they we first unable to slow-down the rise in price, all the way up to $150/bbl. Then they they were unable to prevent it from dropping to $30/bbl.

    As you point out, there is little (short term) incentive for OPEC to rein in the rise in price (OT: Isn’t OPEC also supposed to look after its members’ long term interests?). But surely, on the way down, they had every incentive to show what they can do.

    The bottom line is: OPEC seems quite powerless. Could it be that the Free Market has rendered OPEC irrelevant?

    [link]      
  13. By rrapier on October 12, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    In 2008, they we first unable to slow-down the rise in price, all the way up to $150/bbl. Then they they were unable to prevent it from dropping to $30/bbl.

    I don’t think they were unable, I think they just reacted too slowly. I was critical of them at the time, suggesting that they needed to be raising production several months before they did it.

    And as long as they are holding production off of the world market – as they are doing now – they are impacting prices and thus aren’t powerless.

    RR

    [link]      
  14. By Wendell Mercantile on October 12, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    If you happen to depend on wind and solar to stay alive, you will die.

    You will die? Don’t you think you are being a bit dramatic? You might not live as comfortably, but you won’t die. For example: The people of the Netherlands thrived in the 16th and 17th centuries using only solar and wind power. Solar and cattle manure to grow crops, and wind to drain the polders to provide a place to grow crops and graze the cattle that provided the fertilizer.

    [link]      
  15. By Kit P on October 12, 2010 at 10:10 pm

    “Don’t you think
    you are being a bit dramatic?”

     

    Well no, loss of
    electricity or other sources of energy is a serious public health
    issue. Oh yes, the good old days when bodies are being burned in the
    street because they are dying in large numbers. At least in winter,
    nature provides a natural morgue.

     

    “The people of the
    ..”

     

    People like Wendell
    like to idealize the ‘simple life’. If Wendell is really a civil
    engineer he should understand how much energy is required to treat
    drinking water and sewage.

     

    Sure pre-industrial
    revolution farming communities can do just fine but Wendell want to
    live in a big city and talk about landfill gas. A large city can
    produce 10 MWe of LFG. Wendell is old enough to remember how to use
    a slide rule. Tell me Wendell, where is the other 990 MWe of
    electricity you need for your city going to come from?

     

    Yes, we should keep
    building wind and solar as fast as we can but we should not have any
    illusions about the limitations.

    [link]      
  16. By perry on October 13, 2010 at 8:48 am

    OD said:

    Oil won’t be gone in 2048. For that to be the case, production would have to stay at peak rates before going to zero, and we all know that isn’t the case.


     

    The point I was making is that we can’t rely on it much longer. We see numbers bandied about for depletion rates of this resource or that. But, those estimates fail to take a number of things into account. For instance, declining availability of oil will lead to more consumption of gas and coal. Whether we’re burning NG to power our EV’s, or shoving coal in the trunk to power a steam turbine, we’ll still need energy of some kind. I did some calculations of my own to find out how much longer fossil fuels would last assuming production “stayed at peak rates before going to zero”. To do this, I figured how long each fossil fuel could provide all our fossil energy needs by itself, and then added those years up.

     

    Oil provides 38% of our energy. If it were in a big tub so we could use it down to the last drop, and rates of consumption stayed the same, it would last 37 years. If it provided all our fossil fuel needs, and that demand increased 2.5% a year, oil would last about 8 years.

    Natural gas would last 9 years.

    The EIA says coal reserves are about 930 billion short tons. This would last 132 years at current consumption rates. 56 years at a 2.5% rate of annual growth, which is about what’s been happening for the last couple decades. Coal provides 25% of the planets energy. It would last 14 years if it provided 100%.

    Uranium reserves would be depleted in 7 years.

     

    That’s a grand total of 38 years worth of fossil fuels remaining on the planet. That’s assuming we could extract and burn them on an “as needed”  basis. We obviously can’t. Realistically, we’ll probably be struggling harder than a Prius going uphill to meet our energy needs 15 years from now. We need to get very busy on alternatives. Like there’s no tomorrow.

     

     

     

     

    [link]      
  17. By Kit P on October 13, 2010 at 10:22 am

    “Uranium reserves
    would be depleted in 7 years.”

     

    Perry you left out
    the million. That is 7 million years or is it 7 billion years? Can
    never get that straight in my mind. Anyhow we will run out of stuff
    to fission for energy sometimes after the sun goes nova.

     

    The point here is
    that Perry does not have a clue of what he is talking about. When we
    go looking for a energy resource, we find lots of it but we only pick
    the low hanging fruit. Just down the road from where I live in
    Virgina is one of the largest uranium deposits in North America.
    Periodically, they debate mining it it to create jobs. There is a
    county to the west of the uranium deposit that has strip mined 25%
    (or so they say) of the mountain tops. You would think a big coal
    mining could figure it out.

     

    Then there is spent
    fuel. Only about 5% of the enriched uranium is used in spent fuel,
    it can be processed out. Uranium can be mined from coal ash,
    phosphorous processing residue, and sea water. Then there is breeder
    reactors of all sorts and thorium.

     

    We are not running
    out of fossil fuel either. We periodically run out of low hanging
    fruit and have to find a more expensive source. It is sad that we
    did not have a have energy policy that that mitigated the economic
    hardship when we have to transition to more expensive new sources.
    Bush put a policy is place and it appears that Obama wants to
    ‘change’ that although Obama has never articulated what that change
    is.

     

    “We need to get
    very busy on alternatives.”

     

    I agree but what do
    you think we have been doing for 50 years. For example, nuclear
    power replaced base load oil generation in the US and coal in France.
    Then there is geothermal, biomass, solar, and wind. Except for
    geothermal, the company I work for does all those things.

     

    The problem with
    Perry’s argument is it is not true. Alternatives are more expensive.
    When you lie to people to justify the added costs it make people
    angry. We need a small fraction of alternatives to mitigate future
    uncertainty.

    [link]      
  18. By perry on October 13, 2010 at 11:21 am

    Kit P said:

    Perry you left out
    the million. That is 7 million years or is it 7 billion years? Can
    never get that straight in my mind. Anyhow we will run out of stuff
    to fission for energy sometimes after the sun goes nova.

     


     

    Yes Kit. We can run fusion reactors off deuterium for the next 150 billion years. In theory. When is the last time a theory got you to the grocery store Kit? And yes, there’s lots of uranium in seawater. A whopping 3 parts per billion. Good luck with that Kit. These fossil fuel reserve estimates are based on what can realistically be recovered. That wouldn’t include a small deposit of oil 5 miles under Mount Everest, or lakes of liquid ethane on Saturn’s moons.

    Sticking our heads in the sand and hoping scientists come to the rescue with gee wiz technology at the last moment is a damned risky bet. Bet wrong, and there will be hell to pay.

    [link]      
  19. By mac on October 13, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    Gee whiz technology. Robert ran a post here a while back on Maxwell’s peak oil prediction of 2017-18. Maxwell has been in the oil biz and and an oil analyst for 40 years, He plainly says there is no new oil technology on the horizon that can halt declining reserves. No new magical oil discovery tools or drilling technology to extract it. Assuming we can even find more oil with these hypothetical whiz bang technologies. Sure, there’s more oil out there but
    it’s the reserve to production number that really counts – that’s the amount of oil that’s economically recoverable. Some estimate that the R/P numbers for the U.S. is about 11 years – 38 yrs for Canada, our biggest supplier.. In other words, it’s either find a substitute for oil or continue to count on the Saudis, Iraq, Iran, etc. with reserve to production numbers of over 100 years.

    [link]      
  20. By OD on October 13, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    We need to get very busy on alternatives. Like there’s no tomorrow.

    While I think your analysis is highly flawed, that is really the take home point and one which I’m sure everyone on here would agree with, except perhaps Kit.

    [link]      
  21. By Kit P on October 13, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    “Sticking our heads in the sand..”

     

    Running around like Chicken Little saying the sky is falling is not very useful either.  However, Perry is the one with his head stuck in the sand has yet to read NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY MAY 2001:

     

    http://www.wtrg.com/EnergyRepo…..Policy.pdf

     

    “Currently, the U.S. has enough coal to last for another 250 years.”

     

    When it comes to natural gas check out Figure 5-4,

     

    “Restricted Natural Gas Resource Areas in the U.S. Lower 48”

     

    Of course this document is out of date since it does not even discuss shale natural gas made economical by advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.   We have many years of natural gas reserves too.

     

    “Yes Kit. We can run fusion reactors off …”

     

    I did not mention fusion.  All of the sources I noted to provide fissionable material for a million plus years are practical.  Just because Perry does not know how to get uranium from sea water does not mean that the Japanese did not figure it out.  Japan is very dependant on imported uranium but they have a plan B and C.

     

    “that is really the take home point and one which I’m sure everyone on here would agree with, except perhaps Kit” 

     

    What do you disagree with OD, what I said or what you thought I said?  I was wondering which alternative you think we should get busy on that we are not already busy on?  Try to keep up with events OD. 

    [link]      
  22. By OD on October 13, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    Kit, I believe it’s fair to say a lot of us are here because we are worried about the energy crisis that is slowly forming. Based on your posts, I am under the impression that you do not agree there is any energy crisis coming down the line or that fossil fuels, specifically oil, will be declining in the near future. Is that a fair statement? That is what I disagree with.

    We are not running out of fossil fuel either.

    We should be ‘getting busy’ building out mass transit, since a peak in oil production is likely to hit transportation very hard. I don’t see this being done, except on paper. So yes, we need to get busy! This is just one example. We are just sitting on our hands waiting for the next shoe to drop. What is being done, i’m afraid, is far from enough.

    [link]      
  23. By Kit P on October 13, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    “What is
    being done, i’m afraid, is far from enough. ”

     

    OD you really did
    not answer my question but I will try to explain why you are wrong
    using wind farms as an example. The first generation of Carter era
    wind farms was a mechanical and siting failure but we learned how to
    do it better. Now we are building wind farms in better places with
    better equipment that should last much longer. Wind farms are being
    built a rate that indicates that we have gotten busy.

     

    However, in any
    case, this Bush era set if wind farms will all be scrap metal 200
    hundred years before we run out of fossil fuel. I think that the
    scrape metal will be recycled into a new generation of wind farms
    that last longer.

     

    OD, I do not know if
    you understand second order differential equations that could be used
    to describe the capacity to replace fossil fuels for making
    electricity. One term would be the rate that we can build wind farms
    and a second term the rate at which they break.

     

    The point here is
    that we have demonstrated the ability build faster than fossil
    decline, therefore there is no ‘slow crisis’. Therefore I am not
    worried.

     

    Now if you are still
    worried, let me explain nuclear power. France is an industrialize
    country that already discovered peak coal. They have demonstrated
    the ability to build nuke plants and keep them running to provide 80%
    of their electricity.

     

    Once China stopped
    exporting slave labor produced coal, world coal prices will make
    nuclear power an an economical option for each country. In the US,
    there are something like 30+ new nuke plants in planning and design.
    A new enrichment plant has just started operation with two more
    planned. Also several new factories to build heavy nuclear
    components in the US again. There are also preliminary designs for
    the next generation of high temperature nuke plant that can provide
    hydrogen to biorefineries.

     

    Once again, nobody
    is sitting on there hands. We are busy

     

    I will be happy to
    continue on with biomass and solar but they are smaller factors in
    the equation.

    [link]      
  24. By OD on October 14, 2010 at 6:15 am

    Kit, all of what you say is true, but all of that refers to energy used to make electricity, it does not address the liquid fuels crisis that is coming. The answer is to perhaps electricify the transportation fleet, but that is moving at a snail’s pace. I don’t see biofuels coming close to closing the gap.

    [link]      
  25. By OD on October 14, 2010 at 11:27 am

    *electrify

    [link]      
  26. By Kit P on October 14, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    “it does not address the liquid fuels crisis that is coming.”

     

    I started with electricity generation because right now 70% comes from fossil fuels but the theory is the same.  To avoid a crisis you must show that new alternative sources of can be added faster than the rate at which oil depletes.  This is why I recommend reading the NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY MAY 2001.  Even if you do not like the policies of Bush/Cheney on energy, you will see what a plan looks like.

     

    “but that is moving at a snail’s pace”

     

    First, that is the nature of changing energy infrastructure and second there is no reason to waste resources going too fast because we do not know what the winner will be yet.

     

    But we are moving forward.  Corn ethanol is the biggest example and it has been done E10 in 5years.  Until more flex fuel cars on the road it is hard to go faster.  Soon we will be getting practical experience with BEV.

     

    Then there is CTL.  If there is enough coal to last for another 250 years, using nukes to make electricity and the coal to transportation fuel gives us a least 100 years.

     

    The cure for worrying about a crisis is to have a workable plan.  I have an ice storm/hurricane plan that involves powdered milk and cold cereal.  There are some who will tell me I should give up steak and ocean fish because of AGW.  If the climate changes 1.6 °C over the next 100 years I can use my storm/hurricane plan but I think I will have already died from too many steaks and zero small pox epidemics.  

     

    Again I see that we are doing everything that we need to be doing to avert some future crisis.  I understand the sense of urgency that some have but I think it comes more from the enjoyment of a good drama than an engineering analyses.  

     

    I have watched some go into panic attacks over the thought of dirty bomb or flying a jumbo jet into nuke plant.  All you have to do is walk away and maybe take a shower in the worst case scenario.  We have plans in place.

     

    What it boils down to is acting on a crisis that has not happened yet will be a waste of resources.  However, expending a small of resources to be prepared is not a waste.  

    [link]      
Register or log in now to save your comments and get priority moderation!