I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Do you want oil production to peak, sometime in the reasonably near future?
Yes I do
53%
[ 98 ]
No I don't
46%
[ 86 ]
Total Votes : 184
Author
Message
EnergyUnlimited Fusion
Joined: May 15, 2006 Posts: 3314
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:37 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?
skyemoor wrote:
Let me see if I understand you correctly. So your 'right' to make money at any cost trumps the future of other people's children's? I, for one, would not embrace such a statement, regardless of how 'objectively right' you claim to be. Indeed, I find such statements repugnant.
I think, you are fighting war with a windmill, skyemoor.
Making money at any cost is a pillar of our society.
It is also a dead end.
No amount of "progressive" action will change it, as long as current global civilization functions.
Ruin of this civilization will be both:
- product
- solution
to this sad state of affairs.
So there is no need to criticize this poor soul, that he is a ruthless money slave.
That is what he was thought to be after all.
Quote:
Society has taken steps in recent generations to consider the effects of unbridled lust for money on people and their children. We now have child labor laws, workplace safety regulations, pollution regulations, auto safety regulations, and so forth, each of which I heartily support with no regrets.
You do, but Indians or Chinese don't.
That is why you can buy some cheap Chinese crap and climb on moral high grounds meantime.
Once our oil bonanza is over you will see again:
1. Child labor and (God forbid!) prostitution.
2. Collapse of safety at work regulations.
3. Rampant pollution in final fits of "PO mitigation by clean coal" frenzy.
4. Any remaining automobiles will strive for efficiency (in mpg terms) at expense of vehicle safety.
5. ...and so on.
...and all of these will come to US and no longer be a sole domain of some elusive Third World countries far away.
...and you (with your children) will see all of it.
So overall picture will not be pretty...
I think, you have written few survivalist books.
I wonder, how could you miss issues raised by me above?
From this what you say, it appears that you actually believe that we can still worship plenty of civilized man's hubris in societal collapse environment.
Again, I don't know what society will emerge, once all the mess is over (in any case it will be an agrarian one), but I am certain that collapse itself will involve symptoms which I have noted above... and many other symptoms...
In any case there is a good chance that this future society will be a better place to live than a current one is, but there will be a plenty of pain before we get there, though.
Entire process may take a century or two...
We will only change, once all our hubris are debunked by Nature.
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:23 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?
I have been thinking... when people are invested in a bet and have something to gain from a particular outcome, is it not natural for some cheerleading to take place? So in focusing on the watching crowd, is there not a danger of missing the race?
Peak oil has undoubtedly been co-opted by some people into their environmental and anti-staus-quo agendas, yet from the same quarter we see accusations of ownership by opposing parties, usually tied up in geopolitical agendas or profiteering. This is not isolated to any one part of the political spectrum. No-one can resist sticking their finger in that pie.
To whom does peak oil belong? Actually, to no-one. All some people are doing is taking something that is happening quite independently and inserting themselves into the picture. Like trespassers at a fundraiser or something.
Given that this is inevitable to some extent, is it fair to allow this to reflect badly upon the issue at hand? The discussion so far sounds almost as though peak oil is discredited by the wagers of those who have taken a view on it. And yet, whoever ultimately profits, the event remains in progress.
That is why I think bringing people's wishes into this is a bit silly. They are not a variable influencing the outcome. Emotional stakes and whatever one thinks of them are neither relevant nor important. _________________ Volatility. When life isn't exciting enough.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2051 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:47 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?
skyemoor wrote:
OilmanChoke wrote:
The Non-Traditional reserves we are finding, ... These resources are trillions of barrels in size.
The projections are all over the map (i.e., Bakken = 10 to 400 billion barrels). Of course, the percentage economically and technically recoverable is the real number to consider.
And also the rate of extraction. It matters little even if a resource is the biggest ever discovered, if the rate of extraction is well below conventional fields.
skyemoor wrote:
JD wrote:
Skyemoor and the other peak oilies talk a good game about sustainability and GHG's etc., but it's mostly just rank hypocrisy like Al Gore. They're all living gas-guzzling lifestyles, and investing in oil stocks etc. What kind of car do you drive Skyemoor?
I'm a bit surprised to see you make wild assumptions like this, JD.
I'm not surprised, though it enhances JD's case not at all. Even if true, it's completely irrelevant to figuring out the impact of peak and how to come to terms with it.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2051 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?
JohnDenver wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
You never address scale.
Tony, I am more than willing to do a hundred page thread with you on the topic of scale at any time. I only have one condition: that you formulate the problem of scale for me -- tell me what human beings won't be able to do -- in one sentence.
Replace fossil fuels for all of their uses, on scales that business as usual would dictate, on a timescale that mitigates the impact of fossil fuel declines and that doesn't impact our habitat for the worse.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2051 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?
OilmanChoke wrote:
Hmmm. It really doesn't matter to me whether we have Peak Oil, Plateau Oil, or NotPeak Oil, whether now or in the future. I have seen the energy balance projections and they depend on economic viabilities of each component, and in no case does the sky fall. The fact that Peak Oil concept has taken on such an important role to many of you is telling, if only to highlight a kind of catastrophic "the sky is falling" mindset. The most interesting comment was the fellow (person?) who stated that he or she had no faith in mankind, and that it was somehow dangerous to have faith in the ingenuity of mankind. Wow. So, somehow, I should have more faith in Chicken Littles and politicians seeking to increase their power instead of engineers and scientists who look for technical solutions.
That's some convoluted logic in that paragraph. I don't know what energy balances you've seen but every examination I've seen for alternatives, either singly or in combination, falls down due to problems of scale, time to transition, side-effects, resource constraints (for harnessing said alternative) or wishful thinking. Furthermore, your characterisation of everyone who doesn't take your position is an insult to many who have done far more work that you in trying to understand our situation. And my comment on placing faith in mankind's ingenuity to sort out every problem has nothing to do with placing faith in something else; I always suggest doing what we know we can do, not what we don't know we can do - this requires no faith.
OilmanChoke wrote:
The Dude... (Love the movie and the name)... Our friends the Japanese will screw with the Clathrates, just like they do the whales. The US is spending a big portion of its DOE research dollars on Clathrates, and some fellow just came up with a way of mapping them via sulfate geochemistry that is supposedly very cheap. Of course, figuring out how to capture the methane as it sublimates from ice to gas is the trick, and certainly screwing with the pressure/temperature regime is risky. Kind of like the first Nukes, where the possibility existed for setting off a global chain reaction. That must have been a butt clencher day in NM for those in the know!
Again, you ask us to put faith in human ingenuity to avoid catastrophic effects of harnessing clathrates, rather than instead do something different from busines as usual. This is most certainly a faith based position.
OilmanChoke wrote:
I have read about the conjectures about Clathrate drivers in the past, and it makes some sense. We see a lot of catastrophic climate change in the geological record. 100,000 year on up volcanoes will also be good candidates (10 times plus the historical human greenhouse gas load released in one eruption). If we want a civilization that lasts more than 100,000 years (current set up is only 100 years old at best), we better be able to deal with natural phenomena that is truly catastrophic.
Not really. You appear to be suggesting that because we will not be able to deal with the naturally occurring catastrophic events that beset the earth from time to time, we shouldn't do anything about near term probabilities that we could do something about. This is a false argument because it implies that we should never alter our behaviours, since bad things always happen. We should be concerned with near term climate change that our behaviour exacerbates, because it's obvious that such change will affect, and is affecting, our habitat for the people that now live in it, or for their children.
OilmanChoke wrote:
If Peak Oil wasn't an issue, would you think differently about "what needs to be done"? If anthropogenic greenhouse gas effects were shown conclusively to be bunk as climate drivers, would you alter your worldview?
As we are living unsustainably (currently requiring about 1.3 earths, set to markedly increase with the growth of the BRIC economies), it wouldn't now alter my world view much. If we continue to use resources beyond their renewal rate, and without regard for the impacts, then we're screwed anyway; to rely on avoiding the problems in our lifetimes, leaving it to future generations, is a faith based position.
OilmanChoke wrote:
If I had called a tree "wacky", no one would have objected. If I had called the concept of God "wacky", some of you may have been offended. When I called the concept of "sustainability" wacky, I got a response that was the equivalent to telling a church full the same thing about God.
Not at all. You got a reasonable answer. If you are not concerned with sustainability then that is up to you but why call those that are concerned, wacky? It's a perfectly acceptable position to want to try to figure out a way for one's descendents to live good quality lives.
OilmanChoke wrote:
Predictions are not accurate, they assume perfect knowledge, and mandating action on imperfect knowledge is silly.
And yet you demand inaction on imperfect knowledge. Are you saying that our way of life is sustainable for the next few decades and that the growth of the BRIC economies will have no effect on that position? How do you know, without perfect knowledge?
OilmanChoke wrote:
Sustainability means nothing without population control, population control leads to human rights violations of the highest magnitude.
Sustainability includes a stable population; who has said anything else? And "control" can come in many ways, only some of which violate human rights (which are rights that we, ourselves, decide on, anyway; they aren't a physical law). Even if the solution that do violate current rights, are you saying that humans are incapable of deciding on actions that may have some undesirable consequences but have an overall benefit? If so, I could well agree with you there.
OilmanChoke wrote:
I repeat my query, if we have a 300 year supply of something, doesn't that qualify as sustainable for all intents and purposes? Please, one of you go invent a 1000 year or 100000 year sustainable, cheap energy supply. Mankind would be better off, and you will be richer than Creseus (OK, I probably spelled that wrong)... until 50 years or 100 years from now when someone invents something better.
That's a faith based position. What is the something we have 300 years supply of, and how do you know for certain?
OilmanChoke wrote:
Unless you agree with my friend on this board that he essentially doesn't believe in human ingenuity. That isn't even addressable it so contrary to every bit of available evidence, unless he is living in Darfour.
You are perverting my post. I said relying on human ingenuity to solve every problem is a faith based position. Where is the available evidence that humans have always solved every problem in the past perfectly? How do you know that every solution hasn't resulted in unintended other problems? I've often read such undiluted faith and often read of lists of problems that weren't solved or that had unintended consequences.
Yours is a faith based position and you ridicule those that suggest we should take a more rational approach.
OilmanChoke wrote:
Lastly, everyone has a dog in this fight. I am an oilman. I derive income from finding and producing oil and gas. Climate researchers work largely for governmental entities. They seek funding, and funding is grotesquely available to study the "problem", because there is a power grab underway.
Hmm, are you saying that every climate scientist is under control of some organisation that has a specific interest in validating AGW? This seems nonsense to me. The US government has only recently acknowledged AGW, yet thier main science bodies have long acknowledged it. Governments most certainly don't want AGW to be true because that means having to do something about it. Yet you are claiming that the few scientists who support your opinions are the ones that should be believed.
OilmanChoke wrote:
Many in my industry have pointed out that Matt Simmons is an Investment Banker specializing in oil field services. By creating a scarcity scare, he commands higher valuations for the companies he finances and sells. Matt Simmons and his proselytizing about Peak Oil has made me more money than Plateau or NonPeak oil has ever made me. Go Matt! Go Peak Oil Brothers! You MIGHT be right! You MIGHT not!
Who are these people that have pointed this out? So because one person may benefit from pushing energy problems (though I'm not sure Matt does; this has been discussed a few times here), we should instead believe those that have a different view based on their making a living from that different view? This is illogical. Make your arguments and let's see if they stand up, by themselves, regardless of who gains or loses from being right.
OilmanChoke wrote:
It's not just money, either. Many of you have a lot invested in your value systems
I can't speak for others but this is completely wrong, in my case. What you may understand my value system to be has changed markedly in the last few years, due to looking carefully at the climate change and peak resources arguments. I would still love to read a good argument, with sound evidence, that allows be to ignore both issues; it would make my life one hell of a lot easier - and I'm all for easy living. But all I hear is faith.
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:08 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?
skyemoor wrote:
OilmanChoke wrote:
I repeat my query, if we have a 300 year supply of something, doesn't that qualify as sustainable for all intents and purposes?
I'll repeat my answer;
Quote:
Sustainable Energy definition: Energy that can be produced economically and safely for all time without impacting the environment and well-being of future generations. http://www.cotswold.gov.uk/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=1484
If it is hydrocarbons you are talking about, then the widespread use of these unduly impacts the environment and hence are not sustainable.
OilmanChoke wrote:
Please, one of you go invent a 1000 year or 100000 year sustainable, cheap energy supply.
No invention necessary. Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, wave, etc are sustainable. Cheap is a relative word; don't forget we consider external costs as well. $100/barrel oil is not cheap.
I'll give you the same objection you gave me: Where's your *timetable* for shutting off the fossil fuels/nuclear and switching over to 100% sustainable energy? _________________ Think outside the petri dish.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2051 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?
JohnDenver wrote:
I'll give you the same objection you gave me: Where's your *timetable* for shutting off the fossil fuels/nuclear and switching over to 100% sustainable energy?
The timetable is not as critical, if one isn't looking to maintain business as usual. Since renewable energy is the only viable sustainable energy, it is the only long term supply strategy we should adopt. If we want to avoid complete chaos as we move down the energy slope, some serious public education is needed, in order to enable a move to a non-growth economy.
For a fair way of managing oil decline, the Oil Depletion Protocol, along with some form of Tradeable Energy Quotas seems sensible.
Pain is unavoidable but attempts to continue growing the energy supply will lead to more pain, even if it starts later.
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:18 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?
thuja wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
skyemoor wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
Furthermore, nitrogen fertilizer can be produced without any fossil fuel at all, using hydroelectricity, wind or nuclear power. Nitrogen comes from the air, not from natural gas. For details, see:
PEAK OIL AND FERTILIZER: NO PROBLEM
Please inform yourself better so that you don't perpetuate lies.
You never address scale.
Nor timeframe to change over the current natural-gas based ammonia production infrastructure. Nor what to do about all the hydropower that is currently tied up with baseload electricity generation.
We will switch from the current natural-gas based ammonia infrastructure when it becomes economic to do so -- i.e. when imports become too expensive, or it becomes cheaper to use coal, or nuclear. We don't live under the Soviet system where these transitions are scheduled by apparatchiks without reference to prices.
And who said that fertilizer has to be produced with hydro? It can be, but it will more likely be produced with coal, and then nuclear.
Again JD- I think you miss the point that preparations for large scale changes must take place well in advance of a crisis.
You have given no reason to believe there will be a nitrogen fertilizer crisis. If you are so sure such a crisis will occur, tell me why and when. _________________ Think outside the petri dish.
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?
TonyPrep wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
I'll give you the same objection you gave me: Where's your *timetable* for shutting off the fossil fuels/nuclear and switching over to 100% sustainable energy?
The timetable is not as critical, if one isn't looking to maintain business as usual.
What a load of B.S.! LOL. You're clearly dodging the issue and trying to maintain a double-standard. Sorry I'm not buying it. You're the one who says we need to plan 30 years ahead to head off the crisis. So where's the *plan*, man? I want dates, and schedules.
Quote:
Since renewable energy is the only viable sustainable energy, it is the only long term supply strategy we should adopt.
Who appointed you as the spokesman for everybody? You're not the king. We live in a democracy where policy is ultimately decided by the electorate. Maybe the majority will do what you say they should. And maybe they'll just trample all over you because, deep down, they care more about their cars more than the environment. Personally, I think it's the latter. I'm a realist. _________________ Think outside the petri dish.
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?
TonyPrep wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
You never address scale.
Tony, I am more than willing to do a hundred page thread with you on the topic of scale at any time. I only have one condition: that you formulate the problem of scale for me -- tell me what human beings won't be able to do -- in one sentence.
Replace fossil fuels for all of their uses, on scales that business as usual would dictate, on a timescale that mitigates the impact of fossil fuel declines and that doesn't impact our habitat for the worse.
I've replied in a new thread:
Link _________________ Think outside the petri dish.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2051 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?
JohnDenver wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
I'll give you the same objection you gave me: Where's your *timetable* for shutting off the fossil fuels/nuclear and switching over to 100% sustainable energy?
The timetable is not as critical, if one isn't looking to maintain business as usual.
What a load of B.S.! LOL. You're clearly dodging the issue and trying to maintain a double-standard. Sorry I'm not buying it. You're the one who says we need to plan 30 years ahead to head off the crisis.
No I didn't say that. Must have been someone else.
JohnDenver wrote:
Quote:
Since renewable energy is the only viable sustainable energy, it is the only long term supply strategy we should adopt.
Who appointed you as the spokesman for everybody? You're not the king. We live in a democracy where policy is ultimately decided by the electorate.
No-one appointed me king, I was merely stating the obvious. If you believe that non-renewable energy sources can be maintained indefinitely, then maybe you can put your name forward for Grand Miracle Worker. Nature has the final say over what people would like to be the case.
JohnDenver wrote:
Maybe the majority will do what you say they should. And maybe they'll just trample all over you because, deep down, they care more about their cars more than the environment. Personally, I think it's the latter. I'm a realist.
In what way are you a realist? Is it realistic to expect peoples desires to be met indefinitely, or is it realistic to expect natures limits to ultimately be the deciding factor?
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?
TonyPrep wrote:
...., or is it realistic to expect natures limits to ultimately be the deciding factor?
Tony, nature does not have any limits, nature does not have any rules. Nature does not care if the hunter gets the beast or the beast gets the hunter. In the end both end up as compost.
There is no waste in nature either.
And humans are part of nature. It does not matter how detached we might see ourselves. Btw we are not the only species, which consummates more than the environment can offer. _________________ I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2051 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:14 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?
Lighthouse wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
...., or is it realistic to expect natures limits to ultimately be the deciding factor?
Tony, nature does not have any limits, nature does not have any rules. Nature does not care if the hunter gets the beast or the beast gets the hunter. In the end both end up as compost.
There is no waste in nature either.
And humans are part of nature. It does not matter how detached we might see ourselves. Btw we are not the only species, which consummates more than the environment can offer.
I agree. The limits I refer to are limits with regard to what humans try to demand of the rest of nature.
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 3623 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?
JohnDenver wrote:
You have given no reason to believe there will be a nitrogen fertilizer crisis. If you are so sure such a crisis will occur, tell me why and when.
When NG supplies in North America begin to decline - in about three/four years, by most reckoning. If we haven't built more LNG terminals or opened up massive amounts of unconventional gas where do we turn? Albeit fertilizer is a small amount of NG consumption, and could be subsidized/rationed. And you are correct that we could import more from China's coal-fed fertilizer stocks.
One thing you might investigate is the feasibility of switching over the current US NG fertilizer apparatus to use some other energy source. The Natural Gases aren't delivered on trucks, it's a bunch of tubes! To paraphrase Ted Stevens (R-AK). Are rail lines located near NG facilities? How much would switching over feedstocks cost per year, will the equipment work with both coal and NG, how much of an impact would this have on coal consumption? And so forth. Contribute something productive.
OilmanChoke wrote:
Kind of like the first Nukes, where the possibility existed for setting off a global chain reaction. That must have been a butt clencher day in NM for those in the know!
Really reassuring example there! That was Oppenheimer, Teller, Fenyman chattering their teeth. To be fair the Permian-Triassic extinction (95% species wiped out) also had the Siberian Traps lava flows and multiple bolide impacts going on, too. Still - you want us to muck around with something that might wipe out say 33% of all life if it went wrong? I'm for an international test ban on drilling into the methane hydrates, sorry. It's such an obscure issue I'll never have my way. Think I'll move to Point Barrow!
You should take these responses you get here as they come. Some people are very snippy or ideologically driven. It happens. Few bother to look at things from a businessman's perspective, either. I say - know your enemy! It's how the rest of the world is thinking. The ideal goal would be to make your favorite meme of Sustainability ridiculously lucrative. You don't care exactly how you make that killing, do you?
Quote:
Quote:
Since renewable energy is the only viable sustainable energy, it is the only long term supply strategy we should adopt.
Who appointed you as the spokesman for everybody? You're not the king. We live in a democracy where policy is ultimately decided by the electorate.
Which has also been posited as a barrier to effective action on climate change - same holds true of energy transitions.
Kind of a bizarre statement - what non-renewable energy supply is viable on the long-term? _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
C'mon man, who're you gonna believe?
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil: Do you want it to occur?
TonyPrep wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
I'll give you the same objection you gave me: Where's your *timetable* for shutting off the fossil fuels/nuclear and switching over to 100% sustainable energy?
The timetable is not as critical, if one isn't looking to maintain business as usual.
What a load of B.S.! LOL. You're clearly dodging the issue and trying to maintain a double-standard. Sorry I'm not buying it. You're the one who says we need to plan 30 years ahead to head off the crisis.
No I didn't say that. Must have been someone else.
Oh sorry. I guess that was thuja. So you're of the opinion that planned governmental action is not necessary, then?
TonyPrep wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
Quote:
Since renewable energy is the only viable sustainable energy, it is the only long term supply strategy we should adopt.
Who appointed you as the spokesman for everybody? You're not the king. We live in a democracy where policy is ultimately decided by the electorate.
No-one appointed me king, I was merely stating the obvious. If you believe that non-renewable energy sources can be maintained indefinitely, then maybe you can put your name forward for Grand Miracle Worker. Nature has the final say over what people would like to be the case.
The statement "we *should* only adopt sustainable energy" is a totally different proposition from "non-renewable energy sources cannot be maintained indefinitely". The second is an obvious fact that everyone agrees with. The first is your personal opinion, which virtually everyone disagrees with.
TonyPrep wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
Maybe the majority will do what you say they should. And maybe they'll just trample all over you because, deep down, they care more about their cars more than the environment. Personally, I think it's the latter. I'm a realist.
In what way are you a realist? Is it realistic to expect peoples desires to be met indefinitely, or is it realistic to expect natures limits to ultimately be the deciding factor?
I'm a realist because I don't think people will give up non-sustainable energy simply because you think they should. Sermons about the powers of Mother Nature don't affect that point. _________________ Think outside the petri dish.
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
