As this Foreign Policy article points out, there is no fundamental rationale for the current prices; oil should be between $40-$60 a barrel, but because of speculation and fear the price has been driven up much higher. The peak oil people love to say "I told you so" when the price goes up. What are they going to say when the price goes down? I expect crickets.
The price of oil will go ... down
We have $100-a-barrel oil due to speculation and fear 54
-
Posted 1:19 PM on 15 Nov 2007
by Jason D Scorse -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Jason Scorse, PhD
Associate Professor
Chair of the International Environmental Policy Program
Monterey Institute of International Studies
Institute Webpage: http://www.miis.edu/academics/faculty/node/936
Related Stories
Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 6:55 am
15 Nov 2007
I am going on to the record right here right now saying that:
"Prices will go down if there is less demand for oil (or anything else for sale on this planet) or when those who sell it voluntarily begin selling it for less profit"
Tssss. What a revelation.
Karsten
http://www.pollutless.com
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:10 am
15 Nov 2007
My understanding is that we are at a "plateau", that is, oil has basically peaked, but the price will wobble around, but with a general trend upwards.
The main point, in any case, is that between global warming and peak oil, we should be ramping down consumption of fossil fuels.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:29 am
15 Nov 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
RoySV Posted 7:40 am
15 Nov 2007
Peak oil realists will only have crow if the world production begins a substantial and sustained upward trend lasting at least 5-10 years. Anybody betting on that?
PS: Brazil finding a few months worth of oil under 7 thousand feet of water and several more thousand feet of salt won't even make a dent. It won't even show up for 3-4 years at least.
Permalink
odograph Posted 9:04 am
15 Nov 2007
Prices just are.
It's the stuff of empty punditry to say why exactly they are, or why exactly they should be something else. Puffery and hackery I say, Sir!
(It is somewhat more interesting to talk about factors contributing to prices, but always with humility, of course.)
Permalink
odograph Posted 9:06 am
15 Nov 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 9:34 am
15 Nov 2007
Meanwhile, other sources say:
eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html
World liquids consumption in the IEO2007 reference case increases from 83 million barrels per day in 2004 to 118 million barrels per day in 2030. Two-thirds of the increment is projected for use in the transportation sector.
My guess is that oil consumption is going to continue ramping-up for at least the next century. Over the same time period -- because only a tiny fraction of the total petroleum resources have been so-far tapped, and because tapping efficiency is bound to continue to improve -- prices will steadily fall beyond historic lows.
Jon Rynn wrote: peak oil, we should be ramping down consumption of fossil fuels.
If there is a collective-interest in reducing present oil demand in anticipation of future supply-shortages, that can be resolved by decriminalizing (eliminating taxes on) futures-trading. By anticipating the profitability of future shortages, futures-traders can cause the present prices of oil to rise, thereby reducing present demand and further-thereby resolving future oil shocks.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 12:17 pm
15 Nov 2007
In theory, supply, demand, price, refining capacity, taxes, and profit margin should be able to explain any market, although it usually fails with crude oil because it is notoriously fickle. One hurricane named Katrina added 20 bucks a barrel in a matter of days.
Political stability has been mentioned, such as a "terror tax" which should be substantial as well. After that, there is an extremely hot debate about the role of the financial markets in crude oil. Yup, the same people who brought you the "sub-prime" market disaster.
Now that money is flowing away from mortgage instruments and energy commodities, it is no surprise to see softness in the crude oil market. Of course, a killer blizzard in the Mid-West and Northeast would fix all that in a jiffy. /sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:33 pm
15 Nov 2007
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:29 pm
15 Nov 2007
It's like why marketers price things with lots of 9's in it. The value of $2.99 sounds more like two bucks instead of three. Your brain sees the two and likes it - it's almost subliminal advertising.
Slap and price like $3.05 and it's a whole new ballgame, even though it's only six cents higher.
The tough part is figuring out how trillions in money moves through the global crude oil market, with all kinds of different currency exchanges. By no means do I have an answer.
But in honor of the peakers, the smart money does say the days of "light sweet crude" are pretty much over, and now most crude stocks are of a very high sulfur content, called "sour." As government mandates continue to mandate lower sulfur in transportation fuels, the crude is requiring more hydro-treating and desulfurization.
It's a canary in the mine kind of thing, maybe.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 4:06 pm
15 Nov 2007
Caruso's real message was not the headline grabbing 20 cents gallon, but that the EIA is coming to believe there has been a major change in the oil markets. In the Administrator's words, "We think we're in a different era with relatively higher real oil prices going out through 2030. Rising demand coupled with `insufficient' investment, lack of access to resource bases in the U.S. and elsewhere, and a `dramatic rise in the cost of doing business' are boosting prices." Caruso added that he expects crude oil prices to remain high through the first three months of 2008, and warned that supplies coming onto the market after that will be more costly.
In a swipe at a new Saudi mantra, echoed by many on Wall Street and in the media, that speculators, traders, and hedge funds are responsible for high prices, Caruso said that while speculators may have helped push the price rise, their impact "is really a symptom of market fundamentals" because demand for oil remains high.
Permalink
hikerreese Posted 4:51 pm
15 Nov 2007
It does not surprise me that the US Department of Energy says prices will stay high. the Bush administration intends to continue to let the oil industry dictate energy policy. Of course they are going to raise prices.
Permalink
odograph Posted 9:59 pm
15 Nov 2007
Now, you might think at first sight that they've changed their stripes with this higher price prediction, but really they are playing the same game.
They say today's market conditions will last until 2030. You may agree, but ... remember that's what they said five years ago. They were wrong then, because the 'safe' prediction that 'all things being equal' did not hold.
I say 2030 is totally up in the air.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:23 pm
15 Nov 2007
Gosh, economists just can't tell the difference. What a surprise, eyyh Jason. Hehehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:33 pm
15 Nov 2007
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 12:04 am
16 Nov 2007
The reason we aren't ever going to see cheap oil for extended periods of time is that 2 billion Indians and Chinese on scooters can use more oil than 300 million americans can save by switching to plug-in hybrids.
Should the asians irrationaly decide to forego automobiles or scooters there are still a billion people in Africa and South America who might appreciate kerosene cooking fuel instead of trying to burn every weed, twig and corncob within 100 miles of their urban squat.
The supply of oil is fixed and declining. The supply of potential oil customers is growing exponentially.
Do the math.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 12:24 am
16 Nov 2007
Same thing about my old beach house here in hurricane alley. It is worth $100K but I paid $200K for it. And that was considered a very good deal at the time!
So the problem with artificially high prices such as crude oil cannot be explained within the market structure, but rather the fact that people are willing to pay the price. If you don't like the price you can just let somebody else get the goodies.
And that's the market fundamentals: ask, bid, and settle.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:51 am
16 Nov 2007
If you think one is "inherent" there is probably not much I can do to help you ... other than perhaps to ask you how an "inherent" price could ever be calculated without resorting to up (or down) stream "ask, bid, and settle" prices.
The money itself (as we are seeing in recent, unfortunate, currency trends) is subject to "ask, bid, and settle."
At some point, IMNSHO, you have to grow up and say "prices just are."
Permalink
mrLee Posted 1:12 am
16 Nov 2007
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/p87339.asp
http://www.energybulletin.net/10878.html
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/ind ...
Don't say we didn't warn ya'.
Permalink
mrLee Posted 1:14 am
16 Nov 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:41 am
16 Nov 2007
And up. And down. and up again.
However whats important is the trend.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:47 am
16 Nov 2007
And does decreasing the price of liquid fuels encourage a reduced consumption of it? Or not?
Permalink
odograph Posted 1:59 am
16 Nov 2007
I think those sorts of calculations are most reasonable, but seldom done.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 4:59 am
16 Nov 2007
I hope that makes some sense as to what are "inherent" costs. There's quite a bit of economic theory behind it. If that doesn't feel good for you, well at least I tried.
Analogies are dangerous but let me try one more. Land, in itself, has no price, value, or worth. Land only had a value if you put in a house, crops, mine, animal farm, forest for selling wood, and so forth. This comes as a shock to most people, but even conservation land has a price because there is intrinsic value in NOT having houses, mines, corporate farms, CAFOs, and harvested timberland. By itself, though, raw land isn't worth a dime.
And oil deep in the ground ain't worth a flippin' penny. /sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Kristina & Jason Makansi Posted 5:18 am
16 Nov 2007
Of course it will go down.
And up. And down. and up again.
However whats important is the trend.
Another part of that trend, unfortunately, is that once the price goes down, much of the enthusiasm for alternative fuels goes down as well. So, the question is how do we keep the current momentum for alternative energy moving forward whenever the price of oil does go down? We've seen it happen before...the price goes up, people start buying smaller cars, supporting alternative fuels, calling for energy independence. And then, the price goes down, and the average Joe kinda sorta forgets what all the big fuss was about.
Whether the price goes up or down, we've got to make sure investment in new energy stays on track this time around--the horizon for infrastructure development projects stretches out from 20-40 years into the future. The decisions we make today will affect the kinds of decisions we're able to make in the future. So, how do we make sure this time it's different? How do we make sure that the alt. energy movement doesn't lose steam when the price at the pump doesn't hurt quite so much?
Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi
Read Lights Out reviews
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 6:05 am
16 Nov 2007
Then auto makers began producing incredibly clean engines for both traditional and alternative fuels, and like you say the alternative fuel ones lagged in the marketplace. Natural gas refueling stations were bulldozed down or not started, thousands of them. And for all the talk about hybrid, fuel cell, and other advanced technologies, things never came back into vogue.
Some of the folks here at Grist can tell you why this happened, which was a function of DOE investments in alternative and innovative transportation technology. As in ... getting their budget cut to shreds. EPA tried to push clean air initiatives for alternative technologies and has those functions cut to the bone. You don't hear about mobile source emission reduction credits anymore, do you?
That's because of funding, staffing, and a chilly political climate. Amazingly, though, President Clinton did press for clean gasoline and clean diesel (sort of like "clean coal" I know) and President Bush signed them into law.
The only problem is, clean gasoline and clean diesel actually make more CO2 than the regular old stuff. The engines that use clean fuels and have clean emissions have two to five percent less fuel economy. The amount of excess CO2 emitted to the atmosphere because of these two developments is truly staggering - yet nobody is talking about it.
sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
odograph Posted 6:16 am
16 Nov 2007
I hope that makes some sense as to what are "inherent" costs. There's quite a bit of economic theory behind it. If that doesn't feel good for you, well at least I tried."
Did you catch when I said "without resorting to up (or down) stream 'ask, bid, and settle" prices.'?
I guess not. You named a series of costs, themselves changing over time. Not only do they change as the ask/bid/settle price on land/labor/energy change, they change as the average energy mix changes.
You've reduced "inherent" price to an arbitrary point-measure of whatever is going on in the world at the moment.
Funny that you frame that as "economics" because it flies in the face of Econ 101 - starting supply and demand curves, but continuing on to substitutability of inputs for your oil production and etc.
Permalink
odograph Posted 6:20 am
16 Nov 2007
Permalink
Steve Erickson Posted 8:27 am
16 Nov 2007
Over the same time period -- because only a tiny fraction of the total petroleum resources have been so-far tapped,
-----------------------------------------------------
Huh!!!!
Citation please? What is your source for this claim?
Steve E.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 8:51 am
16 Nov 2007
The fact is the crude oil market does NOT respond to supply and demand curves all the time like you'd like to see in Econ 101. I've been around long enough to know better.
And if you want to know when oil was the most expensive in terms of constant dollars adjusted for inflation, peak prices actually happened in the 1980's - well before "peak oil" ever happened.
But you know that. Right?
Onward through the fog
Permalink
cosmoss Posted 9:08 am
16 Nov 2007
AUTHOR: PEAKED PRODUCTION MEANS OIL PRICES TODAY ARE CHEAP
When you fill up your car to go to work or to grandma's house for Thanksgiving, consider an expert's grim warnings about the world's supply of oil and other energy sources.
The world has passed its peak production of oil, and people must come to grips with approaching shortages and an urgent need for conservation, said Matthew Simmons, an energy investment banker in Houston. He delivered a lecture at the University of Kentucky last night and spoke with the news media beforehand.
Simply put, the world needs 88 million barrels of oil a day to carry on as usual, he said. But the production of global crude oil is 73 million barrels a day, with natural-gas liquids meeting the remaining needs.
But the supply of oil will keep dropping until it reaches 40 million barrels a day by 2030, he said.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 9:18 am
16 Nov 2007
I'll give this a break from the flamers but one hidden story is that because oil is priced in dollars, we're really putting the shaft to all those people who sell oil to us. Depreciation of the dollar has been phenomenal, especially against the Euro (about $1.45). So when those foreign countries cash in their 100 dollars per barrel they only get about 50 back!
Trillions of dollars have magically disappeared due to the incredible shrinking dollar. Incredible.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:20 am
16 Nov 2007
Frankly I could care less about "alternative fuels".
Whats important is increasing the energy efficiency of our transports.
And that it seems rather counter productive to attempt to increase the supply of liquid fuels, if fuel economy is the real goal should be.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:59 pm
16 Nov 2007
...Under your feet -- trillions upon trillions of barrels.
runet.edu/~wkovarik/oil/3unconventional.html
In their book, The Future of Oil, Odell and Rosing note that estimates of the world oil resource base ranged from two trillion to 11 trillion, with three trillion barrels of oil being "the more realistic figure" for conventional oil, while another two trillion could be added as a conservative estimate for unconventional oil.
[...]
In a 1999 Greenpeace report on Climate Change, Odell noted that "a modest 3,000 billion barrels reserve of non-conventional oil (out of an ultimate resource base more than an order of magnitude bigger) could then sustain a continued increase in world oil use beyond the middle of the 21st century on the basis of an assumption of a 2% per annum growth in demand. Under this scenario the world oil industry in the mid-21st century would be approximately three times its present size."
Permalink
cosmoss Posted 9:34 pm
16 Nov 2007
Huge US Reserves of Oil Shale Hold Promise, But at High Cost
"The reserves are very large," said Boak. "The potential to build them up is perhaps less, in that it takes a good deal more work to get the oil out of the ground. You are essentially cooking a rock that is not ready to produce oil yet."
One of the biggest problems he sees is the enormous amount of electricity that will be needed to heat the shale and the carbon dioxide the power plants could produce.
"Most of the CO2 is coming from the power plants that are built to heat the rock underground," said Boak. "So, if you have a different approach, if you use nuclear, if you can establish renewable energy, then maybe you have less of a CO2 problem, but the amount of energy is really large."
"My estimate was to produce three million barrels a day, you would have to have four times the current installed wind capacity of the entire U.S. [United States]. So it is a lot of electricity if that is what you are using to heat underground," he added.
http://voanews.com/english/2007-11-12-voa57.cfm
Permalink
odograph Posted 10:50 pm
16 Nov 2007
That's a hard thing to actually calculate because (a) the list of suppliers is constantly changing and (b) the list is very large.
That is illustrted by this "source country by year" matrix. 36 thousand barrels from Israel? 146 thousand barrels from Jamaica? 505 thousand barrels from Lithuania? I'd guess that there is a lot of international trading going on there, and all we have is the most recent owner of record.
Now, way back above you say:
"Oil should only cost about 50 USD a barrel."
First of all we have to assume that all those nations in that matrix "should" sell their oil to us at cost(!), but beyond that we have to assume that we know what there aggregate costs are ... and that they will have any meaning 10 minutes from now.
Where does that $50 come from exactly?
More recently you say:
"The fact is the crude oil market does NOT respond to supply and demand curves all the time like you'd like to see in Econ 101. I've been around long enough to know better."
I think the market does certainly respond to supply and demand curves, though overlaid on that we have human emotion (bounded rationality) and governmental intervention (texas railroad commission, opec embargoes, carbon taxes ...)
Permalink
odograph Posted 10:51 pm
16 Nov 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 10:55 pm
16 Nov 2007
$30/barrel, using nuclear reactors to supply the electricity and process-heat?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:05 am
17 Nov 2007
With titanic water use and contamination and massive GHG climate change. This is why peak oil is nothing but a diversion and a trading scam. Prattling about the peak in the near future will continue decade after decade to insure that big oil and nuclear corps will continue to rule the world. With oil and nuclear proliferation wars one after another.
Halliburton moved to dubai so that even after the US can send no more soldiers and money into the endless oil wars, they will keep the war going, getting payed by boosting the price of gas a few more dollars per gallon. It will be pay as we gas guzzle for endless contractor oil wars.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:31 am
17 Nov 2007
There will be war in Colorado because of low-cost nuclear-assisted oil-production?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:57 am
17 Nov 2007
Have you noticed the nut wing obsession with Chavez? Venezuala has some of the largest deposits suitable for synthetic liquid fuel. War in other regions with tar sands and other sources for future gas guzzling?
Does anyone doubt the invasion, occupation, and nation building plans have already been written up for each nation established over underground wealth of all kinds? Cheney must even have a canadian invasion plan in his man-sized safe. No doubt.
The huge palm plantations in tropical nations must hold some interest also. Remember France, the rubber industry, and Vietnam?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 1:47 am
17 Nov 2007
Wherefrom did you get that idea?
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:35 am
17 Nov 2007
This giant combined coal shale/tar sands and biofuel processing plant crawls across the landscape grinding up carbon sources and transforming them into diesel and gasoline in the infernal nuclear furnace of it's belly. Out of it's multiple pipeline tails gasoline, diesel and methane spew out to power the victory of mankind over nature.
Coal fields, oil shale, forests, swamps, houses fields and rivers are all the same as long as there is hydrogen and carbon to be cracked in the nuclear fire and recombined into desired products.
And it could have GUNS!! Lots of guns!! and missiles and lasers and a cubic zirconium dome on top where Ming the merciless could supervise his domains.
It beats the crap out of wimpy old windmills and solar panels any day.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
trock Posted 7:34 am
17 Nov 2007
If the United States tells some country we are going to wind turbine you or solar collect you, they don't care.
But we say, we're going to nuke you, they'll listen.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 7:41 am
17 Nov 2007
Hey this is pretty therapeutic!
Onward through the fog
Permalink
cosmoss Posted 9:44 am
17 Nov 2007
as they same in that article, it will take 20 years for any kind of significant production to come from oil shale. by that time, we could have converted on our entire vehicle fleet over to electric technology.
anyway, it is questionable whether or not human civilization will remain intact in 20 years. i'm betting on total meltdown in 5 years or so.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 10:01 am
17 Nov 2007
There is no market for electric vehicles. They cannot be sold. No one buys them. There is no electric-vehicle technology available today that is attractive to consumers.
I think there would be a market for electric vehicles if onboard continuous recharging were available in the form of Radioisotope Electric Generator (REG) modules, but nuclear power would need to be decriminalized for that to happen.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 11:22 am
17 Nov 2007
I think there would be a market for electric vehicles if onboard continuous recharging were available in the form of Radioisotope Electric Generator (REG) modules, but nuclear power would need to be decriminalized for that to happen.
Nucbuddy you bring a tear to my eye quoting the very first Science Fiction book I read ever. Yes life was sweet when I was just a lad and nuclear science was going to give me a flying car and a moon colony.
Of course that was before the true horror of pollution became know to us. That and the concept that some people might be inclined to crack a reactor on purpose as a means of politcal leverage. Just think about what would happen if somebody drove up to the airport powered by the exothermic wastes you refer to.
Until some physics genius produces that other science fiction favorite, the solid state nuclear powered battery, powered by thorium and completely reducing in the solid form. Well until then we may just have to be happy with lithium ion batteries.
Well that and zero-state energy. Maybe the Contact section of The Culture will take pity on us and move us in the right direction. Of course that might hurt a bit also.
Solutions like that are bad for business.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:02 pm
17 Nov 2007
If you mean nuclear-pollution, please provide details of what you call its true-horror.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:55 pm
17 Nov 2007
Our urban highways are filled with productivity - sucking delays and congestion, resulting in billions of dollars just in stop and go traffic, the worse kind of power economy for any engine or motor. It's a rolling parking lot out there.
Our choice of vehicles to purchase "clean" vehicles is extremely limited, and even the Toyota Prius is over-powered so as to go 140 MPH, insane. It is worse knowing that cleaner, cheaper, and better vehicles are available in Europe and even Mexico. Something must be done ...
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 2:15 pm
17 Nov 2007
Meanwhile, 4 million Americans telecommute, and climbing:
google.com/search?q=telecommute+million
U.S. Telecommuters Save 840 Million Gallons Of Gas Per Year ...The findings also indicate the estimated 3.9 million telecommuters in the U.S. reduced gasoline consumption by about 840 million gallons, while curbing ...
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/09/20/us-telecommuters-save-840-million-gallons-of-gas-per-year/ - 38k
3.9 Million Americans Telecommute, Helping Reduce Greenhouse Gas ...Check out 3.9 Million Americans Telecommute, Helping Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Submitted by jacob dauler at Associated Content.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/386640/39_million_americans_telecommute_helping.html - 42k -
New Study Finds 3.9 Million Americans Telecommute » Earth 911New Study Finds 3.9 Million Americans Telecommute. by Earth 911 on September 20th, 2007. Post a comment. Associated Content features the results of a study ...
earth911.org/blog/2007/09/20/new-study-finds-39-million-americans-telecommute/ - 42k -
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:14 pm
17 Nov 2007
Interesting stuff.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:03 am
18 Nov 2007
Don't forget nuke-you-ler plasma drills to suck up coal and tar sand oil. come to think of it, with all that oil still left, these will need regular oil drilling equipment for their first mission.
Iraq! Then Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and even then even regions without any oil, coal, or tar. All organic matter can be processed very easily with plasma. Declared a terrorist haven, earth itself becomes one huge source for gas guzzling freedom.
When the organic matter is all gone? Go all nuke.
For a visionary story about how nuke powered transportation (even buses) might work, check out atomic rod's concept.
"...using nuclear power for propulsion applications. The potential propulsion market is large; in 2003 there were 46.8 billion gallons of oil burned in the United States alone in sea going vessels, trains, trucks and buses."
http://www.atomicengines.com/engines.html
That's right..(nuclear powered)buses. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 8:57 pm
26 Nov 2007
No.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prius#2004_to_2007_Prius_.28NHW20.29
Prius [...] Models have a 0-60 mph acceleration time of 10.1 seconds and a top speed of 105 mph (169 km/h) when using both electric and internal combustion motors simultaneously.
However, the Prius does get 140 mpg (miles per gallon) at a steady 20 mph on flat roads.
gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/9/152028/3730#8
Permalink