Page 31 of 55 FirstFirst ... 2127282930313233343541 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 818

Thread: Biden to eliminate oil and gas by 2035

  1. #451 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,467
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,696 Times in 2,028 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trump's Brain View Post
    My friend, neither you or I know what alternative sources of energy are being worked on in oil company secret labs
    Are you pretending to speak for me as well?

    Petroleum companies invest their resources into finding the next well of hydrocarbons, not in trying to defy physics and "develop" unprofitable options.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    Into the Night (10-26-2020)

  3. #452 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,653 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Trump has not violated the Constitution of the United States in any way.
    I know. The SC overturned his unconstitutional executive orders. They checked his illegal attempts.

  4. #453 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    343
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 83 Times in 62 Posts
    Groans
    80
    Groaned 25 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    Geology isn't your strong suit either. Ask me how I know.
    You are easily tooled by absurd Marxist propaganda targetting the extremely gullible. Ask me how I know.

    [hint: we aren't going to run out of hydrocarbons; the earth will keep making more ... in vast quantities]
    Awww.... there's that cute little, "fuck science" trumpian rage I've grown so very fond of. You are so darn adorable Muahhhhh!

  5. #454 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    343
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 83 Times in 62 Posts
    Groans
    80
    Groaned 25 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    Are you pretending to speak for me as well?

    Petroleum companies invest their resources into finding the next well of hydrocarbons, not in trying to defy physics and "develop" unprofitable options.
    Oooh.... look at you stomping your little ignorant foot like you're smart or something So cute!

    https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/fea...ewable-energy/

    Some of the oil majors have invested heavily in renewables, such as wind and solar, as they look to transition towards cleaner energy sources

    Wind turbine
    India is looking to expand its clean energy capacity from 86.3GW at the beginning of this year to 175GW by 2022 and 450GW by 2030 (Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Tom Corser)

    Oil and gas is often painted as the dirtiest sector within the energy industry, but major companies have begun to invest in renewable technologies in a bid to clean up the economy.

    Of the six “super-majors” – BP, Shell, Chevron, Total, Eni and Exxon – many of them have pumped billions into clean energy projects, although question marks remain over whether they are doing enough.

    Despite the growth in renewables, “big oil” only spent 1% of its combined budget on green energy schemes in 2018.

    Matthias J Pickl, economics professor at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals in Saudi Arabia, wrote a report in November 2019 discussing whether oil companies are transforming themselves into energy firms.

    Titled The renewable energy strategies of oil majors – From oil to energy?, it highlighted how wind and solar are taking an increasingly important role in the energy industry, and that oil majors are “progressively positioning themselves for the proclaimed energy transition”.

    “Oil firms are essentially attempting to figure out how the best presently available cash cow in the world can be replaced for the benefit of their own sustainable future,” he wrote in the report.

    “Furthermore, growing concerns about climate change following the Paris Agreement may provide an additional drive for such strategy to hedge against hardening investor sentiment towards carbon emissions.”

    Here, NS Energy looks into how each of the six oil majors have invested in renewable energy projects.



    Major oil companies’ investments in renewable energy projects
    BP
    BP was the first oil major to commit significant capital to renewable projects, such as wind and solar, from 1980 onwards.

    Formerly known as the British Petroleum Company, it rebranded to Beyond Petroleum in 2001 with a look towards other energy sources beyond oil.

    In the aftermath of the 2010 Deep Water Horizon oil spill incident in the Gulf of Mexico, BP closed most of its previous green energy investments, believed to be worth about $8bn to $10bn.

    But the company still has more than 2200 megawatts (MW) of wind capacity in the US and has started to re-invest in renewables in recent years.

    bp greenwashing
    BP has been investing in solar power in recent years (Credit: Mike Mozart/Flickr)
    It spent $200m in 2017 on acquiring a 43% stake in Lightsource, which has rebranded to Lightsource BP and is Europe’s largest solar power project developer.

    In 2018, the firm made three investments to prepare for a low-carbon future.

    The first of which was a $20m investment in StoreDot, an Israeli developer of rapid-charging batteries.

    BP then made a $5m investment in US company FreeWire, which makes fast-charging infrastructure for electric vehicles.

    And finally, $160m was spent on acquiring Chargemaster, the UK’s leading network of charging points.

    This allowed the oil firm an opportunity to combine Chargemaster’s 6,500 charging points network with its 1,200 petrol stations.



    Shell
    Shell’s investment target for green energy projects was set between $4bn and $6bn for the period from 2016 until the end of 2020 – but with less than a year to go, The Guardian says the sum is “well below” those figures.

    The Anglo-Dutch firm’s 2016 New Energies strategy covers several areas including electricity, wind and solar, electric vehicle charging, and initiatives to encourage the adoption of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles.

    It spent a reported $2bn on setting up a low-carbon energy and electricity generation business in 2016 – ensuring it was on course to meet its targets at the time.

    The following year, it acquired UK-based electricity and gas provider First Utility, as well as Europe’s largest electric vehicle charging company NewMotion.

    In 2018, Shell bought a 44% stake in US solar power firm Silicon Ranch for $200m and made a $20m equity investment in India-based renewable power company Husk Power Systems.



    Total
    Total’s plan for renewables is to invest $500m a year in clean energy technologies.

    That figure is about 3% of the French oil major’s total capital expenditure, with plans in place to ramp that up to 20% over the next 20 years.

    Lightsource BP solar
    Total is aiming to become a global integrated leader in solar power (Credit: Flickr/Dept of Energy Solar Decathlon)
    Over the past 10 years, it has made a number of strategic investments, which included $1.4bn being spent on acquiring a 60% stake in US solar firm SunPower in 2011.

    Total is aiming to become a global integrated leader in solar power and has 1.6 gigawatts (GW) worth of capacity, and plans to increase that to 5GW over the next five years.

    In 2016, it purchased French battery manufacturer Saft for $1.1bn and bought Belgian green power utility Lampiris for $224m.

    Total acquired a 74% stake in the French electricity retailer Direct Energie for $1.7bn in 2018, propelling the company forward into being one of the top utility providers in France.



    Eni
    Although Eni is not quite up to speed with its rival oil majors, the Italian company has plans in place to invest further in renewable technologies.

    In 2014, it launched the world’s first conversion of a traditional refinery to a biorefinery that produces jet fuel, green diesel, green naphtha and liquid petroleum gas.

    With an eye on growing its onshore and offshore wind capacity, Eni formed partnerships with France-based GE Renewable Energy and Norwegian energy company Equinor.

    Clean energy sources play a key role in the firm’s corporate strategy and it is targeting to deliver 1GW of installed renewable power capacity between 2018 and 2021 by investing €1.2bn ($1.3bn), with a long-term goal of reaching 5GW by 2025.



    Chevron
    Chevron’s investments in renewables have been relatively scarce, with no target in place for a move to cleaner technology.

    The US firm has invested in solar, wind and geothermal projects over the past 20 years but, following low returns, the focus has remained on its oil and gas business.

    In 2018, Chevron launched a Future Energy Fund, with an initial commitment of $100m set aside to invest in breakthrough technologies that will reduce carbon emissions and provide cleaner energy.



    ExxonMobil
    Like its US counterpart, Exxon has shown very little interest in investing in renewable energy technologies, with no budget or time-scale planned for future projects.

    The company’s strategy revolves around reducing greenhouse gas emissions, advancing biofuels, and carbon capture and storage (CCS).

    Exxon holds interests in about a third of the world’s CCS capacity and captured 6.9 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide for sequestration – the process of separating the gas from the atmosphere – in 2015.

    In 2019, it announced plans to develop carbon capture fuel cell technology, which produces power and captures and concentrates CO2 for storage – resulting in potential cost reductions.

  6. #455 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    La Pine, Oregon
    Posts
    5,218
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 1,548 Times in 1,137 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 215 Times in 201 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    You mean to say that you have been gibbering with other economics-challenged losers.

    I suggest that you confer with me before you make any future stupid comments. It will spare you a bunch of mocking.
    Then you, in your constant state of ignorance, won't mind actually addressing the question, or will you.

    BTW, do you think maybe they add chemicals, sand, etc., to the water BEFORE beginning the fracking process, and that the residue might just be polluting the groundwater, streams, etc.? Maybe, just maybe, hey idiot?
    "2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"

  7. #456 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    La Pine, Oregon
    Posts
    5,218
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 1,548 Times in 1,137 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 215 Times in 201 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trump's Brain View Post
    Oooh.... look at you stomping your little ignorant foot like you're smart or something So cute!

    https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/fea...ewable-energy/
    There you go again, confusing the little orange turd with facts.
    "2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Old Trapper For This Post:

    Trump's Brain (10-26-2020)

  9. #457 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,467
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,696 Times in 2,028 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trump's Brain View Post
    Awww.... there's that cute little, "fuck science" trumpian rage I've grown so very fond of. You are so darn adorable Muahhhhh!
    Too funny. I'm on the science side of the fence. You are on the scientifically-illiterate-gullible-moron-who-believes-any-and-all-misinformation side of the fence. You clearly don't know the difference between a hydrocarbon and a hydro-massage.

    Learning always was just beyond your abilities, right?
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    Into the Night (10-26-2020)

  11. #458 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Trapper View Post
    Then you, in your constant state of ignorance, won't mind actually addressing the question, or will you.

    BTW, do you think maybe they add chemicals, sand, etc., to the water BEFORE beginning the fracking process, and that the residue might just be polluting the groundwater, streams, etc.? Maybe, just maybe, hey idiot?
    SCIENTISTS AGREE: FRACKING DOESN’T HARM OUR WATER


    Colorado’s lakes, reservoirs, and streams make our state beautiful—and more importantly, nourish our wildlife and supply our communities with water. When it comes to protecting our water, stringent regulations keep Colorado’s water clean while ensuring we can still responsibly access our state’s vast energy resources.

    In fact, scientists and researchers from over two-dozen governmental organizations, universities, and nonprofits confirm that fracking does not contaminate groundwater.

    Take a look at the findings of 26 of these independent, scientific studies below:

    The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas (2017): “Direct migration of contaminants from targeted injection zones is highly unlikely to lead to contamination of potential drinking water aquifers.” (p. 128)
    United States Geological Survey (2017): Unconventional oil and gas operations, such as fracking, did not affect drinking water quality.
    Duke University (2017): “Based on consistent evidence from comprehensive testing, we found no indication of groundwater contamination over the three-year course of our study.” (From press release)
    University of Cincinnati (2016): Water quality not affected by fracking or natural gas drilling in Ohio.
    University of Texas-Austin (2016): Groundwater not affected by fracking in Parker County, Texas.
    Syracuse University (2016): No evidence that fracking altered water quality in Appalachian Basin.
    Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (2016): Scientists show fracking had no impact on water-supply wells in Pavillion, Wyoming.
    Susquehanna River Basin Commission (2016): “To date, the Commission’s monitoring programs have not detected discernible impacts on the quality of the Basin’s water resources as a result of natural gas development, but continued vigilance is warranted.” (p. 8)
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Yale University (2015): “We have found no evidence for direct communication with shallow drinking water wells due to upward migration from shale horizons. This result is encouraging, because it implies there is some degree of temporal and spatial separation between injected fluids and drinking water supply.” (p. 5)
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015): “[H]ydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systematic impacts to drinking water resources.”
    U.S. District Court, Wyoming (2015): “[E]xperts and government regulators have repeatedly acknowledged a lack of evidence linking the hydraulic fracturing process to groundwater contamination.” (p. 26)
    Syracuse University (2015): No evidence of fracking contaminating groundwater in heavily drilled areas of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio.
    California Council on Science & Technology (2015): “The study found no releases of hazardous hydraulic fracturing chemicals to surface waters in California and no direct impacts to fish or wildlife.” (p. 35)
    Stanford University (2015): Scientists find no evidence that fracking chemicals seeped into drinking water.
    U.S. Department of Energy (2014): “Current findings are: 1) no evidence of gas migration from the Marcellus Shale; and 2) no evidence of brine migration from the Marcellus Shale.” (p. 2)
    U.S. Geological Survey (2014): “The comparison of groundwater data from this study with historical data found no significant difference for any of the constituents examined and therefore warrant no further discussion.” (p. 47)
    Duke University, U.S. Geological Study (2013): Fracking and other gas-production activities had no effect on groundwater quality in Arkansas.
    Gradient (2013): There is “no scientific basis” for the claim that fracking fluids will contaminate water aquifers.
    University of Michigan (2013): “The often-postulated percolation upward of fracking water used in deep, long lateral well extensions to contaminate drinking water aquifers near the surface through the intervening impermeable rock formations is highly unlikely and has never reliably been shown to have occurred.” (p. 13)
    National Groundwater Association (2013): “[T]hese findings suggest that the methane concentrations in Susquehanna County water wells can be explained without the migration of Marcellus shale gas through fractures, an observation that has important implications for understanding the nature of risks associated with shale-gas extraction.” (Study abstract)
    Cardno Entrix (2012): Fracking has not caused groundwater contamination in Los Angeles.
    U.S. Government Accountability Office (2012): “[R]egulatory officials we met with from eight states – Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas – told us that, based on state investigations, the hydraulic fracturing process has not been identified as a cause of groundwater contamination within their states.” (p. 49)
    Ground Water Protection Council (2011): “In recent years, the national debate on natural gas E&P has been focused nearly exclusively on a single, brief, yet essential activity, hydraulic fracturing. Neither state [Ohio and Texas] has identified hydraulic fracturing as the cause of a single documented groundwater contamination incident.” (p. 102)
    Center for Rural Pennsylvania (2011): Gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale has not contaminated nearby water wells.
    New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (2011): Fracking did not cause groundwater contamination.
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2010): Risk of water contamination is low due to distance between groundwater and where fracking occurs.

    https://www.cred.org/scientists-frac...nt-harm-water/

  12. #459 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,467
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,696 Times in 2,028 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Trapper View Post
    Then you, in your constant state of ignorance, won't mind actually addressing the question, or will you.
    Try speaking English instead of gibber. Be clear. Be specific. It's no wonder you cannot formulate a correct argument; you can't string together a coherent set of words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Trapper View Post
    BTW, do you think maybe they add chemicals, sand, etc., to the water BEFORE beginning the fracking process,
    They do. That's why I used the word "solution." Now, can you in any way justify your overhyped fear of fracking by providing some rational basis instead of blatantly false Marxist misinformation? Why should any rational adult be hyper-phobic about fracking as you are? Why should any rational adult be up-in-arms over pumping a high-pressure water-based solution into a (kilometers) deep hole beneath impermeable rock?

    [let me know if I used too many multi-syllable words]

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Trapper View Post
    ... and that the residue might just be polluting the groundwater, streams, etc.? Maybe, just maybe, hey idiot?
    No, moron, it's not possible, although the people abusing your trust and doing your thinking for you have convinced you to panic over the impossible. I don't let anyone do my thinking for me so those kinds of attempts to manipulate me don't work.

    Water tables are a few/several meters beneath the surface, far above layers of impermeable rock. Fracking is performed in wells that are kilometers deep, beneath impermeable rock. No, it is not possible.

    You are gullible and naive. You richly deserve to be mocked for your utterly stupid comments.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    Into the Night (10-26-2020)

  14. #460 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,467
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,696 Times in 2,028 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trump's Brain View Post
    Oooh.... look at you stomping your little ignorant foot like you're smart or something So cute!
    Now you are shifting goalposts. Your original context was the replacement of hydrocarbons. Now you are simply pointing to financial investments. All major companies make financial investments.

    You obviously aren't very good at this. You don't even know what you are trying to argue.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    Into the Night (10-26-2020)

  16. #461 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,467
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,696 Times in 2,028 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I know. The SC overturned his unconstitutional executive orders. They checked his illegal attempts.
    Do you have any specific examples in reality or are your only examples some imaginary cases you fabricated within the security insulation of your snowflake safe space?
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    Into the Night (10-26-2020)

  18. #462 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    343
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 83 Times in 62 Posts
    Groans
    80
    Groaned 25 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Trapper View Post
    There you go again, confusing the little orange turd with facts.
    I've been to La Pine many times. One of my former co-workers lives there. Right there on the south end of the Deschuttes - I love the OR high desert. Looking forward to skiing Mt. Bachelor again this winter!

  19. #463 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    343
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 83 Times in 62 Posts
    Groans
    80
    Groaned 25 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    Too funny. I'm on the science side of the fence. You are on the scientifically-illiterate-gullible-moron-who-believes-any-and-all-misinformation side of the fence. You clearly don't know the difference between a hydrocarbon and a hydro-massage.

    Learning always was just beyond your abilities, right?
    Uh, oh.. and then what always happens when a trumpian can't get a sane person to swallow their bullshit, they get all grumpy

    Go find your safe space little camper. Don't forget Wilbur your wonder-lizard therapy pet

    (I crack myself up)

  20. #464 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    343
    Thanks
    182
    Thanked 83 Times in 62 Posts
    Groans
    80
    Groaned 25 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    Now you are shifting goalposts. Your original context was the replacement of hydrocarbons. Now you are simply pointing to financial investments. All major companies make financial investments.

    You obviously aren't very good at this. You don't even know what you are trying to argue.
    Yes, but as I demonstrated by the source you obviously didn't read these investments were in alternative energy. If renewable energy wasn't the way of the future and we have unlimited hydrocarbon resources forever as you're stupidly claiming, why would the oil and gas companies even bother?

  21. #465 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,653 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    Do you have any specific examples in reality or are your only examples some imaginary cases you fabricated within the security insulation of your snowflake safe space?
    Within my security insulation of my snowflake safe space there are numerous examples handed down by the courts:

    These include but are not limited to orders involving immigration, sanctuary cities, DACA, establishment of religion, military transgender personnel..........

Similar Threads

  1. Biden to eliminate Trump by Nov 3
    By Micawber in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-23-2020, 12:23 PM
  2. Replies: 59
    Last Post: 10-04-2020, 10:11 PM
  3. Newsom calls for California ban on new gas-fueled cars by 2035
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 09-23-2020, 09:29 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-22-2020, 02:23 PM
  5. China's economy to become world's biggest in 2035
    By uscitizen in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-08-2008, 06:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •