Filling a pool with oil.

We are using 85 millions barrels of oil per day for the entire world, just to give you an example how much oil this is, let put it that way :

85 millions barrels * 159 liters per barrel = 13.5 * 10^9 liters = 13.5 * 10^6 m^3

With this amount, you can fill a poll having 2 meters in height by 25 meters in width (so far so good) by 270 km long !!! (every second, more then 3 meters in the length direction is burned).

Or if you prefer, fill a cube of 238 meters per side.

Do you honestly thing that we can keep doing that for ever and ever ?

No we are using 32-33 millions barels a day in the entire world...

So you're informations are falses.. if not i'm not here anymore..

Originally posted by Vitchilo
No we are using 32-33 millions barels a day in the entire world...

So you're informations are falses.. if not i'm not here anymore..

If you go to this site (Frontline) under "Some surprising facts about U.S. oil consumption and more"

www.pbs.org...

You will see that the world consumption went from 76 millions barrels per day in 2000 to 118.9 millions barrels expected in 2020, so my 85 millions barrels per day for today, sound about right.

The USA alone is using 21.5 millions barrels per day, at peak period in the summer (Reference Matthew Simmons, Energy Banker, 2005), which represent 25% of the world consumption, so just plain forget about your 33 millions barrels per day (totally bogus).

Sorry

But this is very

I thought that it was only 30 millions barrels a day! I was totally wrong!

Is really a barel 159 liters? I thought it was 72 liters?

[edit on 19-10-2005 by Vitchilo]

www.eia.doe.gov...
note that this is last years stats.

there are 42 gallons of oil per barrel.
158.9784 liters per 42 gallons.
www.paulnoll.com...

www.nationmaster.com...&int=-1
2004 total consumption. 3,484.8 million tonnes. 2005 stats didnt show america for some reason? weird. the next highest user, Japan, showed 5.26 million per day.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Sorry

But this is very

I thought that it was only 30 millions barrels a day! I was totally wrong!

Is really a barel 159 liters? I thought it was 72 liters?

[edit on 19-10-2005 by Vitchilo]

Another site that confirm the 84 millions barrels per day:

www.willyoujoinus.com...

From Chevron, there is a quiz "The Gauge" green rectangle to the right.

Also interesting on this site, there is a counter of barrels of oil, since you enter the site, scary.

Originally posted by PopeyeFAFL
We are using 85 millions barrels of oil per day for the entire world, just to give you an example how much oil this is, let put it that way :

85 millions barrels * 159 liters per barrel = 13.5 * 10^9 liters = 13.5 * 10^6 m^3

With this amount, you can fill a poll having 2 meters in height by 25 meters in width (so far so good) by 270 km long !!! (every second, more then 3 meters in the length direction is burned).

Or if you prefer, fill a cube of 238 meters per side.

Do you honestly thing that we can keep doing that for ever and ever ?

Yes we can as world oil reserves have been increasing with, very little effort, for decades at least.

BP: World oil and gas reserves still growing at healthy pace

How much oil and natural gas i left?

Very many more links to indicate the same if your interested.

Stellar

[edit on 2-11-2005 by StellarX]

2 theories I have on Oil...They may seem way off the charts but hear me out please.

I tried coming up with the calculations for what im about to say but couldnt find the right numbers. If we can create diamonds with a machine, something that takes a lot of time and pressure under the earth with man made machines, why cant we produce oil?? I believe the ability to produce oil is already in action, maybe not by everyone,and i dont have hard facts to back it up but just something to ponder. I forget the numbers, but the earth is a relatively small planet compared to others. The core is molten, that is if you dont believe in the reptillian race living inside th earth. Also there are layers upon layers of dirt/rock/sediments/water pockets taking up alot of space. Along with the ocean covering much of the surface of the earth and reaching pretty far down in many parts. I know i have taken a long time to get to my point , but here it is. Imagine the earth was a hollow sphere, are the numbers present to add in all these variables and subtract that from the possible space inside the earth, to determine what area would be left for oil to exist in? At the consumption rate and drilling/stockpiling rate we have been going,this includes every country on earth, not just the US. It seems to me we would be out of oil by now....i dont know, for some strange reason i think that oil is being produced(manmade) and we are being lied too. If it's not......then why? with our technical knowlegde it appears to be possible....someone want to show me some numbers or debunk this theory completely because it's been bothering me for a while.

Basically what i come up with is: the technology to create oil has been discovered and oil is being man-made. Or the technology is in our grasp but no one has pursued it.

OR on the opposite end of the spectrum: Crude oil forms as a natural inorganic process.

web site explaining this in great detail:
www.voicenet.com...

Oil is a byproduct of internal pressure and heat. It renews itself.

Thats my theory anyway.
How else could dry oil fields fill back up again?

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321
Oil is a byproduct of internal pressure and heat. It renews itself.

Thats my theory anyway.
How else could dry oil fields fill back up again?

They don't.

Just ask all the owned of the Southern US fields who have dry fields and old rusted out well pumps.

The US peaked in the 1970s. Just google it for tons of facts.

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321
How else could dry oil fields fill back up again?

The fields that fill up again are filling up because the oi slowly oozes back into the emptied out pores. Remember, oil is contained in the microscopic pore spaces of rock.

Ever drink a slushie that was partially melted, and see the coloured liquid go away, but frosty ice remain? Think of it like that. You pump, the pore spaces empty, and the source is dry. But, given time, oil from a distance will redistribute and ooze back. This doesn't happen all the time certainly, but its what is thought to happen with ones that do refil.

Originally posted by Quest
They don't.

At least some does so why claim otherwise?

Just ask all the owned of the Southern US fields who have dry fields and old rusted out well pumps.

If you pump faster than the refilling rate there is no way to avoid that and why so many dry holes anyways?Don't they know how to find oil?

The US peaked in the 1970s. Just google it for tons of facts.

Humour me and supply me with the facts and figures that actually backs up this theory. Assume i can prove otherwise and try work from there.

Stellar

Mod Edit: fixed Quote Tag.

[edit on 8/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Wells that were P&A'd (plugged and abandoned) in the past weren't necessarily taken offline because they were "dry". Their production rate had dropped below the level that could realize a profit for the owner at the time. If you have a well that only produces 100 bpd (barrels per day) and the price of oil is $8/bbl, you're losing money. So you'll P&A that well.

You can bet your bippies a whole lot of these wells formerly P&A'd are being brought back online now. Because 100 bpd at $60/bbl is something that would change my life.

StellarX - you asked:

...why so many dry holes anyway? Don't they know how to find oil?

Yes they know how to increase the probability of finding oil, but it is never garanteed. That's part of what you pay for for the price of a barrel of oil - the costs associated with drilling a dryhole. The success rate for wildcatting (that is speculative drilling based on an educated guess that a hydrocarbon reservoir exists in that location) has exponentially increased over the past century - but the operators still get a dryhole every once in a while. And that failed drilling rig and drilling operation did not cost a dime less than a successful one.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The fields that fill up again are filling up because the oi slowly oozes back into the emptied out pores. Remember, oil is contained in the microscopic pore spaces of rock.

TThe oozing is also the problem that results in all oil well's losing capacity( as you are probably aware) yearly as they get clogged up. If you leave any given oil well for ten years it will have lost most of it's capacity and you will have to either pull up the entire sleeve just to clear the bottem ( at great cost) or drill another well in the same field. This is frequently used to indicate oil fields running dry when they wells are in fact just oil clogged up. Just another tactic to help people believe that oil is running out.

Ever drink a slushie that was partially melted, and see the coloured liquid go away, but frosty ice remain? Think of it like that. You pump, the pore spaces empty, and the source is dry. But, given time, oil from a distance will redistribute and ooze back. This doesn't happen all the time certainly, but its what is thought to happen with ones that do refil.

This is how some oil fields operate but i think he was asking how field reserves grow with time instead of declining as they should. Why do they do such a bad job of estimating field size or are these fields in fact refilling from deeper source rocks?

Odd Reservoir Off Louisiana Prods Oil Experts to Seek a Deeper Meaning

HOUSTON -- Something mysterious is going on at Eugene Island 330.

Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined
years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330's
output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day.

Then suddenly -- some say almost inexplicably -- Eugene Island's fortunes reversed. The field, operated by
PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million
barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago.

Fill 'er Up

All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil
may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.

"It kind of blew me away," says Jean Whelan, a geochemist and senior researcher from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. Connected to Woods Hole since 1973, Dr. Whelan says she considered herself a traditional thinker until she encountered the phenomenon in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, she says, "I believe there is a
huge system of oil just migrating" deep underground.

Full article

Stellar




[edit on 8-1-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by Valhall
Wells that were P&A'd (plugged and abandoned) in the past weren't necessarily taken offline because they were "dry".

Wich is my point yes.

Their production rate had dropped below the level that could realize a profit for the owner at the time.

What is considered profit in this specfic instance? 50% or 500%?

If you have a well that only produces 100 bpd (barrels per day) and the price of oil is $8/bbl, you're losing money. So you'll P&A that well.

Why exactly is that so? It depends on labour and many factors wich i am certain you do not have infront of you. We are assuming fair play when so much evidence indicates that these companies will shut down their most profitable refineries just to create shortages and raise prises overall.

You can bet your bippies a whole lot of these wells formerly P&A'd are being brought back online now. Because 100 bpd at $60/bbl is something that would change my life.

Well it depends on too many factors including what is considered "profit" by the owner of the well. At 40 dollars a barrel you can go drill in the North Sea ( and i am not sure if it gets more expensive than that) and still turn a profit over the terms these companies normally work.

Yes they know how to increase the probability of finding oil, but it is never garanteed.

Why not? Don't they know how to find oil after 100 years? Why still 2-3 dry holes for every one that gives any oil at all? Lets not even mention how many they drill before the find something that gives oil in commericial quantities.

That's part of what you pay for for the price of a barrel of oil - the costs associated with drilling a dryhole.

Obviously but why can't they invest in proper technology and find oil more reliably? Don't they know how it forms and where to find it? I am sure you well know that the biggest cost in the oil industry normally comes from exploration so i have to ask why they are not better at it yet? What do we really know about oil formation when we they are still so bad at finding it?

The success rate for wildcatting (that is speculative drilling based on an educated guess that a hydrocarbon reservoir exists in that location) has exponentially increased over the past century - but the operators still get a dryhole every once in a while.

You may assume that i did some research in this area and that you need not explain basic terms to me. Wildcats or not they still drill far far more dry holes ( still not mentioning commericial wells) than they drill one's that gives some oil.

And that failed drilling rig and drilling operation did not cost a dime less than a successful one.

So one would expect that with such massive cost involved in exploration they would invest as much resources as was needed to find oil reliably. How on earth can your researchers tell you that there is oil and their simply wrong 70% of the time? Is that science or is that quessing?

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Their production rate had dropped below the level that could realize a profit for the owner at the time.

What is considered profit in this specfic instance? 50% or 500%?

Typically at least double digit. The same thing the shareholder would expect from any investment. Usually at least 12%. My point was that at $8/bbl, it was typically negative - losing money.

If you have a well that only produces 100 bpd (barrels per day) and the price of oil is $8/bbl, you're losing money. So you'll P&A that well.

Why exactly is that so? It depends on labour and many factors wich i am certain you do not have infront of you. We are assuming fair play when so much evidence indicates that these companies will shut down their most profitable refineries just to create shortages and raise prises overall.

First off - don't tell me what I do and don't have in front of me. You either want to talk facts or you want to waller in your own obsession. I can help you with the first. I'll leave you to yourself on the second.

The statement about refineries is an entirely different subject. And I don't disagree with you on what you said. But we're not talking about that right now. This is not an argument about how greedy the oil companies are. Because if it were, we wouldn't be arguing. The exorbitant price of oil right now is nothing but greed - so we'll decide to violently agree on that, ok?

The question you raised was about previously abandoned wells. I'm talking to you about that. Let's not get our subjects mixed up, ok?

You can bet your bippies a whole lot of these wells formerly P&A'd are being brought back online now. Because 100 bpd at $60/bbl is something that would change my life.

Well it depends on too many factors including what is considered "profit" by the owner of the well. At 40 dollars a barrel you can go drill in the North Sea ( and i am not sure if it gets more expensive than that) and still turn a profit over the terms these companies normally work.

Once again, we're in violent agreement. So what exactly is your point other than to argue with some one who is saying the same thing as you. I just got through posting that a lot of the wells formerly abandoned were done so when oil was at $8/bbl - that's a hell of a lot less than $40 isn't it?

Yes they know how to increase the probability of finding oil, but it is never garanteed.

Why not? Don't they know how to find oil after 100 years? Why still 2-3 dry holes for every one that gives any oil at all? Lets not even mention how many they drill before the find something that gives oil in commericial quantities.

Okay, I just figured out what's wrong with you...you can't read. Did I say they can't find oil? I said they have exponentially improved their ability to find oil. I also said that there is also still the probability and the event where all the science that has come to bear so far in the industry doesn't result in a producing well.

That's part of what you pay for for the price of a barrel of oil - the costs associated with drilling a dryhole.

Obviously but why can't they invest in proper technology and find oil more reliably? Don't they know how it forms and where to find it? I am sure you well know that the biggest cost in the oil industry normally comes from exploration so i have to ask why they are not better at it yet? What do we really know about oil formation when we they are still so bad at finding it?

Who said they're so bad - you? Waller a little more, will you?

The success rate for wildcatting (that is speculative drilling based on an educated guess that a hydrocarbon reservoir exists in that location) has exponentially increased over the past century - but the operators still get a dryhole every once in a while.

You may assume that i did some research in this area and that you need not explain basic terms to me. Wildcats or not they still drill far far more dry holes ( still not mentioning commericial wells) than they drill one's that gives some oil.

You're awful self-centered aren't you. Here's a thought - there's a couple of more people reading this thread than just you. Then consideration of defining an industry-specific term is for the benefit of all the audience, not just you Homer.

And that failed drilling rig and drilling operation did not cost a dime less than a successful one.

So one would expect that with such massive cost involved in exploration they would invest as much resources as was needed to find oil reliably. How on earth can your researchers tell you that there is oil and their simply wrong 70% of the time? Is that science or is that quessing?

Stellar

Data to back your figure? And wouldn't it get harder to find the more difficult reservoirs as you find and deplete the easier discovered reseroirs? As the technology to find reservoirs increases, it doesn't necessarily mean the success rate will track it because they are attempting to locate deposits that are deeper, right?

Originally posted by Valhall
Typically at least double digit. The same thing the shareholder would expect from any investment. Usually at least 12%. My point was that at $8/bbl, it was typically negative - losing money.

Well i see that neither of us have specific numbers.

Why exactly is that so? It depends on labour and many factors wich i am certain you do not have infront of you. We are assuming fair play when so much evidence indicates that these companies will shut down their most profitable refineries just to create shortages and raise prises overall.

First off - don't tell me what I do and don't have in front of me.

I apologise, wont do it again.

You either want to talk facts or you want to waller in your own obsession. I can help you with the first. I'll leave you to yourself on the second.

I can do facts. Obsession?

The statement about refineries is an entirely different subject.

Establishes the fact that price fixing happens and that it has nothing to do with 12% profit and everything to do with rather higher profit margins.

And I don't disagree with you on what you said. But we're not talking about that right now. This is not an argument about how greedy the oil companies are.

I aimed to establish that they were not aiming for average profit margins and that there were more involved than simple average coporate profit taking.

Because if it were, we wouldn't be arguing. The exorbitant price of oil right now is nothing but greed - so we'll decide to violently agree on that, ok?

Coporations are obviously out to make as much profit as they can but as i tried to explain, in many post in this section, it seems there is more to this price manipulation than simple higher profit margins

The question you raised was about previously abandoned wells. I'm talking to you about that. Let's not get our subjects mixed up, ok?

I can do however many subjects it takes at once. All subjects are connected as you must realise so why try deal with them in insolation?

You can bet your bippies a whole lot of these wells formerly P&A'd are being brought back online now. Because 100 bpd at $60/bbl is something that would change my life.

Well it depends on too many factors including what is considered "profit" by the owner of the well. At 40 dollars a barrel you can go drill in the North Sea ( and i am not sure if it gets more expensive than that) and still turn a profit over the terms these companies normally work.

Once again, we're in violent agreement. So what exactly is your point other than to argue with some one who is saying the same thing as you.

Well they were almost always making profit and the they did not cap them becuase they were not making profit but because they were not making as much as they wanted. I may be nitpicking but i wanted to make sure that was understood.

I just got through posting that a lot of the wells formerly abandoned were done so when oil was at $8/bbl - that's a hell of a lot less than $40 isn't it?

That is why i originally asked wether they were making 50% profit on that 8 dollar barrels or more? You might think you agree with me but it does not look that way to me!

Okay, I just figured out what's wrong with you...you can't read.

I have many flaws but i am not so sure about that one.

Did I say they can't find oil? I said they have exponentially improved their ability to find oil.

I did not see anything about exponentially increasing anything but saw you type something about how the probability of finding it is increasing. I then proceeded to ask you why they are working on probability and why the probabilty of finding oil were so low. i Dont see the flaw in my reasoning.

I also said that there is also still the probability and the event where all the science that has come to bear so far in the industry doesn't result in a producing well.

And that is why i asked why they were still so bad at finding it. What is wrong with the prospecting method for it to yield so bad results? Once again i am not aware of any illogical leaps.

Who said they're so bad - you? Waller a little more, will you?

Why the sources right infront me? I thought i should assume you have these things infront of you?

You're awful self-centered aren't you.

My detractor's have said worse.

Here's a thought - there's a couple of more people reading this thread than just you. Then consideration of defining an industry-specific term is for the benefit of all the audience, not just you Homer.

My apologies. Seems abit irrational now that i look back at it.

Data to back your figure?

One of the other interesting mantras of the last decade was that technology had eliminated dry holes. Well we never came close to obsoleting the dry hole. The reason dry holes dropped so much is we drill far less wells. We also stopped doing most genuine exploration. Even projects that are called wildcats today probably 20 years ago were called modest step-outs. It turns out that now that we look back with good data it takes four straight dry holes, it is still a risky business. The U.S. statistics are appalling. Here basically is the table going back from 1973 to 2002 of U.S. exploratory success rates and their dry holes as a percentage, and this yellow one going through there is 67% meaning that two out of three of those failed. We modestly drop the line from about 75% down to 67% but two third failure rate, we've just killed building dry holes. The North Sea exploration, in appraisal statistics is still basically about 25% chance of success. Angola, of the major Block 17's has had a string of dry holes. Eastern Canada's recent statistics have been troublesome.

www.fromthewilderness.com...

"Potential traps are identified by analysing seismic survey data but whether they contain oil or gas won't be known until a drill bit penetrates the structure."

"In Australia up to 100 offshore wells per year are drilled. About a quarter of these are development wells to produce oil or gas found by previous drilling."

www.earthsci.org...

Disappointing drilling results affected two of AIM’s recently floated oil prospectors.

A third of the value was knocked off of Cameroon-focused oil explorer BowLeven (BLVN) as, like Frank Timis’ Regal Petroleum (RGP) earlier in the year, a potential well drilling ‘did not encounter’ any oil. Floated at 363p last December, the shares now sit at 445p, virtually half September’s high of 815p.

www.growthcompany.co.uk...

Although modern oil-exploration methods are better than previous ones, they still may have only a 10-percent success rate for finding new oil fields. Once a prospective oil strike is found, the location is marked by GPS coordinates on land or by marker buoys on water.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Dry Hole
A well that does not find oil or gas in commercial quantities. Definitions of commercial vary according to the costs of exploration. A shallow well in the old oil patch in the United States might be commercial when it can produce less than 10 barrels of oil per day, while an offshore well might not be commercial unless it produces several thousand barrels of oil per day.

www.conocophillips.com...

Geologic and geophysical clues are enticing, but drilling is the only way to learn if an oil or gas field really exists. Once a well is drilled, well logs yield data on the types of rock present and, most important, what fluids these rocks contain. The information interpreted from the logs is used to decision whether a well should be completed and used to produce oil and gas, or filled with cement and abandoned. The logs are also used to update the geologic models originally used to locate the well.

Today, the average wildcat well has only one chance in ten of finding an economic accumulation of hydrocarbons. A rank wildcat, if drilled in a frontier area, stands only one chance in forty of success. The odds are much better for a development or extension well, but nothing is a sure bet in the oil business. Thus, even though explorationists (oil and gas prospectors) of today have better tools than their ancient predecessors, luck remains a significant factor in the search for oil and gas. The reality is that most wildcats turn out to be dry holes and not every development well becomes a producer.

www.sjgs.com...

Having said that i would appreciate it if you could come up with your own numbers as i have seen enough to wonder what is really going on with exploration. There seems to be as many figures as companies.

And wouldn't it get harder to find the more difficult reservoirs as you find and deplete the easier discovered reseroirs?

Well the exploration success rates does seem to be improving even thought investment is not going up very fast.

As the technology to find reservoirs increases, it doesn't necessarily mean the success rate will track it because they are attempting to locate deposits that are deeper, right?

If you can answer that you would be educating me. Seems that is not so but there is alot of confliction information on that score.

Either way i am sure if we keep at it we could arrive at numbers we could agree to work with.

Stellar

[edit on 8-1-2006 by StellarX]

[edit on 8-1-2006 by StellarX]

I've given you one I agree on. If a producer cannot realize at least 10 to 12% profit on an investment, they'll dump that investment or put in hibernation until they can make that return. That has nothing to do with how they'll try to make 10 times that if the consumer lets them...that's what is happening now.

I came to this thread to make one statement:

Not all wells that were abandoned were abandoned because they were dry. Some of them were abandoned because they produced at such a low rate that when the price of oil was below a break-over point, the company was either making an insufficient minimum return on investment, OR losing money.

That's a fact. And it has nothing to do with greedy reasons connected with shutting down refineries and then claiming shortages are the reason for jacking oil prices.

So you go back to mixing your subjects and obfuscating - I've said my piece and did it with in the bounds of truth and factual statements. I'd like to wish you luck, but I'm not sure what I'd be wishing you luck at, so I'll refrain and just leave you to yourself.

Originally posted by Valhall
I've given you one I agree on. If a producer cannot realize at least 10 to 12% profit on an investment, they'll dump that investment or put in hibernation until they can make that return. That has nothing to do with how they'll try to make 10 times that if the consumer lets them...that's what is happening now.

And i asked you to provide me with the numbers that indicates the oil industry in general did not make your minimum profit for the last century.

I came to this thread to make one statement:

Are you willing to defend it?

Not all wells that were abandoned were abandoned because they were dry. Some of them were abandoned because they produced at such a low rate that when the price of oil was below a break-over point, the company was either making an insufficient minimum return on investment, OR losing money.

Define "insufficient minimum return on investment" precisely so that i may investigate if this was in fact what motivated the actions we agree on.

That's a fact. And it has nothing to do with greedy reasons connected with shutting down refineries and then claiming shortages are the reason for jacking oil prices.

Does proving that the oil industry blatently manipulates not lead you to considering what they may in fact have done in the past?

So you go back to mixing your subjects and obfuscating -

I do not mind if you wish to insult me but it wont get you anywhere in the long run.

I've said my piece and did it with in the bounds of truth and factual statements.

As you know it currently wich is exactly how i feel about mine. If you are not willing to defend what you consider the truth neither of us will be the wiser for it.

I'd like to wish you luck, but I'm not sure what I'd be wishing you luck at, so I'll refrain and just leave you to yourself.

Thanks, i think.

Stellar

What do you want? And I mean give me specifics on data. Do you want the production costs for when oil was at $8/bbl? I can get you that.

If you're asking for proof 10-12% is a minimum acceptable return expected by investors (i.e. shareholders), I will NOT go out do your research for you because that's common business knowledge. And virtually every corporation on earth works under those guidelines.

You tell me exactly what numbers you want me to get for you, and I'll tell you if I'm willing to go do the research.

I've worked in this industry for almost 14 years. I'm not pulling anything out of my ear, and I can back every statement I've made.

Tell me what you want.

and when I fill your order...there will be a few things I will require from you - quid pro quo.

[edit on 1-8-2006 by Valhall]