THE LAST CHANCE
GSTIS.net
*** HOT HOT HOT ***
See my new article: ENERGETIC LIMITS on pp. 21-23 of the Spring (newest)
issue of ENERGY MAGAZINE! Thanks to Managing Editor Kevin Gaynor,
more-and-more decisionmakers are learning how the "net energy" principle
limits the lifespan of the "market economy".
The University of Wisconsin's Professor Detwyler has created a wonderful
graph that clearly illustrates the net energy principle and shows why the
"down" side of the oil production curve will be much steeper than the "up"
side. See Detwyler's graph at
http://www.uwsp.edu/acaddept/geog/courses/geog100/Petrol-ShrinkNetE.htm
------------------------------------
THE LAST CHANCE
by Jay Hanson -- www.dieoff.com
Third Quarter 1999
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
-- Lord Tennyson
Around 2005, global oil production is expected to "peak" and forever
change human life on Earth. [1] Studies show that nothing can replace
conventional oil. This mailing is of special importance because it
highlights the last chance to estimate all of the remaining energy resources
before the crisis is actually here.
ENERGY OR MINERALS? WHO KNOWS?
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has embarked on a so-called "reliable,
objective assessment of the world's energy resources". [2] Unfortunately,
the USGS is using flawed methodology which guarantees that it will NOT
be an "energy" assessment but a "mineral" assessment instead. Here's why:
A mineral is a mineral no matter how much energy is required to mine it.
But by definition, energy "sources" must produce more energy than they
consume, otherwise they are called "sinks". USGS assessments report
resources in three different ways, as "in place", as "technically
recoverable", and as "economically recoverable". But neither "technically
recoverable" energy nor "economically recoverable" energy is relevant for
anyone who is not in the energy business. On the other hand, we average
citizens are vitally concerned about ENERGETICALLY RECOVERABLE energy. For
example, if it takes more energy to search for and mine a barrel of oil than
the energy recovered, then it makes no energy sense to look for that
barrel -- no matter how high the money price of oil goes. It will make no
energy sense to look for oil in America after 2005. [3] Domestic coal is
not expected to be worth digging out of the ground by 2040 because it will
consume more energy than will be recovered -- it will have become an energy
"sink".
With present methodology, USGS won't be able to differentiate "source"
from "sink"! Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the USGS has
been misguided. One is reminded of the Hubbert-Zapp fiasco that
ultimately forced the director of the USGS to resign in disgrace. [4]
The USGS was wrong before, and they are most certainly wrong again!
It is absolutely imperative to introduce policymakers to these real-world
energy concepts because the coming "peak" in global oil production marks
the end of the market economy! A good analogy is a car with a twenty-
gallon tank, but the nearest gas station is twenty-five gallons away. You
can't fill your tank with trips to the gas station because you burn more
than you can bring back -- it's physically impossible for you to cover your
overhead (the size of your bankroll and the price of the gas are
irrelevant). You might as well plant flowers in your car because it's
"out of gas" -- forever.
It's the same with the American economy: If America must spend more-than-one
unit of energy to produce enough goods and services to buy one unit of
energy, it's physically impossible to cover its overhead (again, money is
irrelevant). At that point, America's economic machine is "out of gas" --
forever
POLLSTERS WITH AN ATTITUDE
The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact
there will be no thought, as we understand it now.
Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think.
Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.
-- George Orwell, 1948
... the world can, in effect, get along without natural
resources ... at some finite cost, production can be freed
of dependence on exhaustible resources altogether...
-- Economic Nobel Laureate Robert Solow
1974 lecture to the American Economic Association
Orthodox economists like Robert Solow are trained -- like mindless robots --
to believe that capitalism is powered by money. But scientists pointed
out over a hundred years ago that capitalism is powered by energy:
"It is, in fact, the fate of all kinds of energy of position to be
ultimately converted into energy of motion. The former may be
compared to money in a bank, or capital, the latter to money which
we are in the act of spending ... If we pursue the analogy a step
further, we shall see that the great capitalist is respected because
he has the disposal of a great quantity of energy; and that whether
he be nobleman or sovereign, or a general in command, he is powerful
only from having something which enables him to make use of the
services of others. When a man of wealth pays a labouring man to
work for him, he is in truth converting so much of his energy of
position into actual energy...
"The world of mechanism is not a manufactory, in which energy is
created, but rather a mart, into which we may bring energy of one
kind and change or barter it for an equivalent of another kind, that
suits us better - but if we come with nothing in hand, with nothing
we will most assuredly return."
-- Balfour Stewart, 1883
But economists still do not study energy -- they study money and prices.
Money isn't a measure of anything real, like tons or gallons. Money is
social power because it "empowers" people to buy and do the things they
want -- including buying and doing other people: politics.[5] Money is, in
a word, "coercion". "Economic efficiency" is correctly seen as a political
concept designed to conserve power for those who have it -- to make
the rich, richer and the poor, poorer.
Like a Tibetan monk spinning a prayer wheel, economists frequently point
to prices and make claims about the real world. This or that is "better
off" they say, and go on their way. But the price of a thing does not
reveal its quantity nor its quality. How much is $10 worth of oil? (It
depends upon when and where you bought it.) What's the net energy of
$10 worth of oil? If oil costs $10 a barrel, how much is left in the ground?
Who knows? Prices simply measure states of mind. This means that
economists issue opinions on opinions. In short, economists are pollsters
with an "attitude".
The source of the economist's attitude (really a political agenda) is
identified by another Economic Nobel Laureate, Milton Friedman:
"Adam Smith's key insight was that both parties to an exchange
can benefit and that, so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary,
no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit." [6]
Economic professors like Friedman resort to meaningless, circular arguments
and mathematical conjuring tricks to promote their political agendas. For
example, economists assume people make "rational" [7] decisions but
abstain from testing that assumption. Instead of testing, economists invoke
"revealed preferences theory" which states that choices are rational
because they are based on preferences that are known through the choices
that are made [8]. In other words, meaningless, circular arguments.
Shouldn't hucksters like Solow and Friedman have received Academy
Awards for their performances rather than Nobel Prizes?
THE WHITE HOUSE IS LIKE A SUBWAY
Wherever men hold unequal power in society, they will strive
to maintain it. They will use whatever means are convenient to
that end and will seek to justify them by the most plausible
arguments they are able to devise.
-- Reinhold Neibuhr
In fact, telling primates (human or otherwise) that their reasoning
architectures evolved in large part to solve problems of dominance
is a little like telling fish that their gills evolved in large part to
solve the problem of oxygen intake from water.
-- Denise Dellarosa Cummins
In 1997, the Chinese lobbyist Johnny Chung observed: "I see the White House
is like a subway - you have to put in coins to open the gates." Millions of
Americans have made the same observation: American politics is based on
money. Why is American politics based on money? The surprising answer
is because the Founding Fathers intended it that way! The "market
economy" was conceived as an antidote for the "peasant rebellions"
of the past -- as a means to create universal values and peace. [9]
The modern "market economy" is essentially money-based politics --
one dollar, one vote. Niccolņ Machiavelli (1469-1527) was the first
to call for rational "interest" (calculation) instead of irrational
"passion" (e.g., love, hate or honesty) in public policy. Machiavelli's
ideas were institutionalized when America's Founding Fathers explicitly
designed a government to be run by competing moneyed interests:
"In 1884, one of the wealthiest men of his time, Henry B. Payne,
wanted to become the next United States senator from Ohio.
Payne's son Oliver, the treasurer of Standard Oil, did his best to
help. Just before the election for Ohio's seat, son Oliver sat at a
desk in a Columbus hotel with a stack of bills in front of him,
paying for the votes of the state legislators, who then elected
U.S. senators." [10]
COLLAPSE OF UNITY
Society is in a perpetual state of war. Lacking moral
and rational resources to organize its life ... men remain
the victims of the individuals, classes and nations by
whose force a momentary coerced unity is achieved.
-- Reinhold Neibuhr
Social "collapse" is defined as the rapid transformation to a lower degree
of complexity, typically involving significantly less energy consumption.
[11] Societies "collapse" when they become too complex for their energy
base. Thus, the collapse of capitalism is inevitable because capitalism
must grow to survive -- must become more-and-more complex and consume
more-and-more energy.
History teaches us that when economists get it wrong, millions die:
"The true nature of the international system under which we were
living was not realized until it failed ... To liberal economists the
gold standard was purely an economic institution; they refused even
to consider it as a part of a social mechanism. Thus it happened that
the democratic countries were the last to realize the true nature of the
catastrophe and the slowest to counter its effects...The dissolution of
the system of world economy which had been in progress since 1900
was responsible for the political tension that exploded in 1914." [12]
Since America is ruled by the moneyed class (as our Founders intended),
it's for them to decide whether or not to preserve anything of our society
or simply allow it all to collapse into violence (multiply the Rodney King
rebellion by a million). Ideally, the rich folks would require the USGS to
include "net energy" estimates in their so-called "energy assessment"...
because it would be nice to at least know when the music ends...
and the camp fires begin...
It rained blood, one breathed ashes, the smell of burned corpses
poisoned the atmosphere.
-- Conot [13]
You've got to accentuate the positive ... Eliminate the negative ...
Latch on to the affirmative ... Don't mess with Mister In-between.
-- Advice from economist Julian Simon [14]
--------
[1] THE END OF CHEAP OIL, by Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrčre,
Scientific American, March 1998 http://dieoff.com/page140.htm
[2] USGS Fact Sheet FS-007-97: The USGS World Energy Program
http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/worldenergy/world.html
[3] TITANIC SINKS, http://dieoff.com/page143.htm
[4] HUBBERT, THE PERSISTENT PROPHET, by Garrett Hardin
http://dieoff.com/page143.htm#HubbertZapp
[5] When I use "politics" or "political", I simply mean "one coercing
another" in the broadest sense. To "coerce" is to compel one
to act in a certain way -- either by reward or punishment. When
I use the term "economists", I mean "standard" (or neoclassical)
economists.
[6] pp. 1-2, FREE TO CHOOSE, Milton and Rose Friedman; Harvest, 1980
[7] "The social sciences have a long, rich history of writings on
rationality. In the tradition of neoclassical economic science, as
in the writings of Pareto (1935), an action is rational when it
corresponds with the ends or goals sought. Rationality means the
adaptation of means to ends. The more congruent the means to the
ends, the more efficient the decision and, therefore, the more
rational the organization (Weber 1947). Economists abstain from
applying the test of rationality to ends." [p.16, DECISION MAKING:
ALTERNATIVES TO RATIONAL CHOICE MODELS, Mary Zey; Sage, 1992]
[8] p. 31, RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY: A CRITIQUE,
Zey; Sage, 1998
[9] THE FOULEST OF THEM ALL http://dieoff.com/page168.htm
Also see Huppert: "Peasant rebellions were not exceptional events.
They erupted so frequently in the course of these four centuries
that they may be said to have been as common in this agrarian
society as factory strikes would be in the industrial world. In
southwestern France alone, some 450 rebellions occurred between
1590 and 1715. No region of Western Europe was exempted from this
pattern of chronic violence. The fear of sedition was always
present in the minds of those who ruled. It was a corrective, a
salutary fear -- since only the threat of insurrection could act
as a check against unlimited exactions." p 80, AFTER THE BLACK
DEATH, George Huppert; Indiana Univ. Pr., 1998.
[10] p. 12, THE MAXIMUM WAGE, Sam Pizzigati; Apex, 1992
[11] COMPLEXITY, PROBLEM SOLVING, AND SUSTAINABLE SOCIETIES,
by Joseph A. Tainter, 1996; http://dieoff.com/page134.htm
[12] pp. 20-21, THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION,
Karl Polyani; Beacon, 1957.
[13] http://www.spectacle.org/695/perp.html
[14] p. 17, GOOD MOOD, Julian Simon; Open Court, 1993. Simon is best
known for his famous bet with Paul Ehrlich. Simon won $1,000 by
showing that prices give no warning of natural resource depletion.
Of course, the lesson of the bet was utterly lost on the comedy
team of Samuelson & Nordhaus! See p. 330, ECONOMICS,
Samuelson & Nordhaus; McGraw-Hill, 1998. Because of their total
dependence on the measure of money, economists are uniquely
unqualified to know anything about the real world -- unable to know
shit from Shineola.
Freeland
two hundred years. These reserves are caped with concrete ready
to be used when the rest of the supply and demand justifies
bringing it up.
GSTIS.net
news:mJHp3.546$Ru2....@news.goodnet.com...
> I use to work in the oil patch, we have enough oil reserves for
> two hundred years. These reserves are caped with concrete ready
EUR Oil
Jay Hanson, 12/27/97
"For many years geologists and oil companies have published
estimates of the total amount of crude oil that will ultimately
be recovered from the earth over all time. Remarkably, these
assessments of Estimated Ultimately Recoverable (EUR) oil have
varied little over the past half century."
[ This is direct quote from a 1996 World Resources
Institute paper by James MacKenzie. Take a look:
http://www.wri.org/wri/climate/finitoil/eur-oil.html ]
________________________________________________
IN 1970, OIL PRODUCTION IN THE LOWER-48 "PEAKED"
40 years ago, geologist M. King Hubbert developed a method for
projecting future oil production and predicted that oil
production in the lower-48 states would peak about 1970. This
prediction has proved to be remarkably accurate. Both total and
peak yields have risen slightly compared to Hubbert's original
estimate, but the timing of the peak and the general downward
trend of production were correct.
[ See the graph for the lower-48 at:
http://www.wri.org/wri/climate/finitoil/productn.html ]
And contrary to a commonly held belief, rising fuel prices will
not create new supplies of fuel. Despite quadrupling prices for
oil and gas products, the "moral equivalent of war", and a 280
percent increase in drilling, the United States is producing less
oil today than it did in 1970.
Global oil production will begin to "peak" when approximately
half of the "Estimated Ultimately Recoverable" oil has been
recovered. The exact date is unknown, but it could be soon as
the year 2000:
"Two important conclusions emerge from this discussion. First,
if growth in world demand continues at a modest 2 percent per
year, production could begin declining as soon as the year
2000. Second, even enormous (and unlikely) increases in EUR
oil buy the world little more than another decade (from 2007
to 2018). In short, unless growth in world oil demand is
sharply lower than generally projected, world oil production
will probably begin its long-term decline soon -- and certainly
within the next two decades." [Again from WRI, please take
a look http://www.wri.org/wri/climate/finitoil/futuroil.html ]
"It is reluctantly concluded that there is strong evidence that
the restricted Hubbert Curve for the world's total EUR of oil
may first peak about the year 2000, Fig. 4, after which it may
fluctuate along a horizontal production line (restricted by
Saudi Arabia/OPEC) before inevitable decline ..."
[ from WORLD OIL, October 1995, FUTURE WORLD SUPPLIES,
by L. F. Ivanhoe, http://dieoff.com/page85.htm ]
"At the time of writing in late 1996, there are still three
more years to go until the end of the transition."
[p. 59, THE COMING OIL CRISIS, by C. J. Campbell;
Multi-Science Publishing Company & Petroconsultants,
1997; ISBN 0906522110
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0906522110/3088-4711339-639335 ]
________________
PETROCONSULTANTS
Petroconsultants is the world's leading provider of data and
analysis for petroleum exploration and production. With
headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, Petroconsultants maintains
offices in London, Houston, Sydney and Singapore, supported by
over 250 dedicated multilingual and multinational employees and
a worldwide network of correspondents and associates.
[ http://www.petroconsultants.com/ ]
"A new report on world oil resources, World Oil Supply 1930-2050
(Campbell and Laherre, Petroconsultants Pty. Ltd., 1995),
concludes that the planet's oil supplies will be exhausted
much sooner than previously thought.
"The report, written for oil industry insiders and priced at
$32,000 per copy, concludes that world oil production and
supply probably will peak as soon as the year 2000 and will
decline to half the peak level by 2025. Large and permanent
increases in oil prices are predicted after the year 2000."
[ from EARTH ISLAND JOURNAL, Spring 1997, THE DEATH OF THE
OIL ECONOMY, by Ted Trainer http://dieoff.com/page116.htm ]
__________________________________________________
ENERGY IS THE PRECONDITION FOR ALL OTHER RESOURCES
There is NO substitute for energy. Although the economy treats
energy just like any other resource, it is NOT like any other
resource. Energy is the precondition for ALL other resources and
oil is the most important form of energy we use, making up about
38 percent of the world energy supply.
NO other energy source equals oil's intrinsic qualities of
extractablility, transportability, versatility and cost. These
are the qualities that enabled oil to take over from coal as
the front-line energy source in the industrialized world in the
middle of this century, and they are as relevant today as they
were then.
Optimists tend to assume that the "quality" (e.g., liquid vs.
solid) of energy we use is not significant, that an infinite
amount of social capital is available to search for and produce
energy, and that an infinite flow of solar energy is available
for human use. Realists know that none of these assumptions is
true.
"If one considers the last one hundred years of the U.S.
experience, fuel use and economic output are highly correlated.
An important measure of fuel efficiency is the ratio of energy
use to the gross national product, E/GNP. The E/GNP ratio has
fallen by about 42% since 1929. We find that the improvement
in energy efficiency is due principally to three factors: (1)
shifts to higher quality fuels such as petroleum and primary
electricity; (2) shifts in energy use between households and
other sectors; and (3) higher fuel prices. Energy quality is
by far the dominant factor." [Cleveland et al., 1984
http://dieoff.com/page17.htm#ENERGY ]
__________________
ECONOMIC IMPLOSION
"The global price of oil after the supply crunch should follow
the simplest economic law of supply and demand: There will be
a major increase in crude oil and all other fuels' prices,
accompanied by global hyperinflation, rationing, etc. After
the associated economic implosion, many of the world's
developed societies may look like today's Russia. The United
States may be competing with China for every tanker of oil,
with the Persian Gulf oil exporters preferring Chinese rockets
to American paper dollars for their oil."
[ from THE FUTURIST, January/February, 1997, GET READY FOR
ANOTHER OIL SHOCK!, by L. F. Ivanhoe
http://dieoff.com/page90.htm ]
As energy prices increase, we become less "energy efficient"
with respect to imported oil. That is, we will have to burn
more energy in order to make more goods and services (to make
more money) to buy a barrel of oil. It's a positive feedback
loop. But there's a thermodynamic limit on how much we can pay!
If as a country, we must spend two barrels of oil to produce
enough goods and services to buy one barrel of oil, it is
impossible for us to pay our overhead -- it is impossible for
us to continue. At that point, America's economic machine is
just plain "out of gas".
For more, see: FOSSILGATE: http://dieoff.com/page122.htm
Jay -- http://dieoff.com/page1.htm
Jo Schaper
Predictions rely on premises. Premises which are
wholly accurate are very rare. We've been "running out of
oil in the next 10 to 15 years" since 1970, that I know of.
A problem in my 1994 dated calculus book, said, "given XXXX
million barrels in known reserves, and no new discovery of
oil, the earth will run out of oil in what year?" to
encourage us to do the accumulated present value
integration. The answer turned out to be 2063. I asked the
teacher what was the point of the problem, since it was
figuring from false premises, and was told such predictions
are very important to economists and big business, since
they determined the price of their products.
In short, it's all a gamble based on false data played
by people with money to while their lives away, folks, and
has very little to do with "reality" unless you happen to be
playing the money game, too.
Jo Schaper
Freeland
government is using all OPEC oil, now, while hiding reserves. I'm
not a traitor to my country, but just stating a fact. OPEC knows
of this, and it is one of the reasons our oil prices are sky
rocketing. Of course, some bigshot oil producers sitting in his
plush office is getting rich off this, as well.
GSTIS.net
news:37a84704...@news.inlink.com...
> What's the old saw? "Figures don't lie, but liars figure. "
> Predictions rely on premises. Premises which are
> wholly accurate are very rare. We've been "running out of
> oil in the next 10 to 15 years" since 1970, that I know of.
Why don't you try reading the material before you criticize it? The reason
there have been so many dumb-shit predictions in the past, is because people
are either too lazy or too stupid do the homework -- like you.
The word already has too many dumb-shits. So rather than carry on in the
dumb-shit tradition, why don't you do your homework?
"For many years geologists and oil companies have published
estimates of the total amount of crude oil that will ultimately
be recovered from the earth over all time. Remarkably, these
assessments of Estimated Ultimately Recoverable (EUR) oil have
varied little over the past half century."
[ This is direct quote from a 1996 World Resources
Institute paper by James MacKenzie. Take a look:
http://www.wri.org/wri/climate/finitoil/eur-oil.html ]
Jay
Jo Schaper
<jha...@aloha.net> wrote:
>Jo Schaper <josc...@inlink.com> wrote in message
>news:37a84704...@news.inlink.com...
>> What's the old saw? "Figures don't lie, but liars figure. "
>> Predictions rely on premises. Premises which are
>> wholly accurate are very rare. We've been "running out of
>> oil in the next 10 to 15 years" since 1970, that I know of.
>
>Why don't you try reading the material before you criticize it? The reason
>there have been so many dumb-shit predictions in the past, is because people
>are either too lazy or too stupid do the homework -- like you.
>
>The word already has too many dumb-shits. So rather than carry on in the
>dumb-shit tradition, why don't you do your homework?
>
>"For many years geologists and oil companies have published
>estimates of the total amount of crude oil that will ultimately
>be recovered from the earth over all time. Remarkably, these
>assessments of Estimated Ultimately Recoverable (EUR) oil have
>varied little over the past half century."
>
>[ This is direct quote from a 1996 World Resources
> Institute paper by James MacKenzie. Take a look:
> http://www.wri.org/wri/climate/finitoil/eur-oil.html ]
>
>Jay
>
So? I still think the whole thing posted to the group is
hooey, and I * have* read it.
Good day,
Jo
Freeland
GSTIS.net <jha...@aloha.net> wrote in message
news:7o9nl9$he6$1...@news.gstis.net...
> Jo Schaper <josc...@inlink.com> wrote in message
> news:37a84704...@news.inlink.com...
> > What's the old saw? "Figures don't lie, but liars figure. "
> > Predictions rely on premises. Premises which are
> > wholly accurate are very rare. We've been "running out of
> > oil in the next 10 to 15 years" since 1970, that I know of.
>
> Why don't you try reading the material before you criticize it?
The reason
> there have been so many dumb-shit predictions in the past, is
because people
> are either too lazy or too stupid do the homework -- like you.
>
> The word already has too many dumb-shits. So rather than carry
on in the
> dumb-shit tradition, why don't you do your homework?
>
> "For many years geologists and oil companies have published
> estimates of the total amount of crude oil that will ultimately
> be recovered from the earth over all time. Remarkably, these
> assessments of Estimated Ultimately Recoverable (EUR) oil have
> varied little over the past half century."
>
> [ This is direct quote from a 1996 World Resources
> Institute paper by James MacKenzie. Take a look:
> http://www.wri.org/wri/climate/finitoil/eur-oil.html ]
>
> Jay
>
>
danny dickerson
I sent some factual corrections concerning Jay's
posts that he simply failed to recognize.
So I stopped argueing with him.
You'll never be able to change his mind.
Remember the old saying about argueing
with a mule....
Danny
Jo Schaper <josc...@inlink.com> wrote in message
news:37a8d64c...@news.inlink.com...
> On Wed, 4 Aug 1999 05:53:13 -1000, "GSTIS.net"
> <jha...@aloha.net> wrote:
>
> >Jo Schaper <josc...@inlink.com> wrote in message
> >news:37a84704...@news.inlink.com...
> >> What's the old saw? "Figures don't lie, but liars figure. "
> >> Predictions rely on premises. Premises which are
> >> wholly accurate are very rare. We've been "running out of
> >> oil in the next 10 to 15 years" since 1970, that I know of.
> >
> >Why don't you try reading the material before you criticize it? The
reason
> >there have been so many dumb-shit predictions in the past, is because
people
> >are either too lazy or too stupid do the homework -- like you.
> >
> >The word already has too many dumb-shits. So rather than carry on in the
> >dumb-shit tradition, why don't you do your homework?
> >
> >"For many years geologists and oil companies have published
> >estimates of the total amount of crude oil that will ultimately
> >be recovered from the earth over all time. Remarkably, these
> >assessments of Estimated Ultimately Recoverable (EUR) oil have
> >varied little over the past half century."
> >
> >[ This is direct quote from a 1996 World Resources
> > Institute paper by James MacKenzie. Take a look:
> > http://www.wri.org/wri/climate/finitoil/eur-oil.html ]
> >