Egyptian Civil Strife

Calabrio

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
8,793
Reaction score
3
Location
Sarasota
Egyptian Civil Strife Sends Oil Close To $100 On Suez Canal Fears
Forbes.com

Investors have their eyes on Egypt as civil unrest in the North African country has progressively escalated into a full blown crisis with international repercUSsions. Beyond the obvious and inexcusable human cost, the protests against Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year reign have hit the sovereign debt and equity markets, and are working their way through the oil and gold markets.

As Egypt’s youth battles the police’s rubber bullets and tear gas with Molotov cocktails and rocks, Egyptian equity markets have been taking an expected beating. The EGX30 equity index lost 10.5% on Thursday January 27 hitting its lowest level in 19 months. Providing easy access to Egyptian equities, the Market Vectors Egypt ETF (EGPT) has taken a dive as well hitting its lowest level ever on Friday 28 at less than $16. The fall comes amidst soaring volumes; MarketWatch reports that Thursday’s more than 330,000 shares traded in the morning mark its greatest volume ever by more than three times. The ETF’s largest holdings include Orascom Construction and Orascom Telecom, property of the wealthy Sawiris family, headed by Onsi Sawiris (founder of Oracom, ranked 307 in Forbes’ World Billionaires List) and his two sons, Nassef (ranked 127) and Naguib (374).

Authorities in Egypt have blocked out internet and mobile phone access in an attempt to disrupt the protests, as reported by my colleague Olson (Egypt Goes Dark, Cuts Off Internet and Mobile Networks). Meanwhile, Fitch has lowered its outlook on Egyptian sovereign debt to negative from stable. Richard Fox, head of Fitch’s Middle East and East Africa sovereign ratings, warned that “a continuation or intensification of significant unrest that seriously threatened economic and financial performance and the economic reform process would lead to a rating downgrade.

In its release, the ratings agency noted that the Egyptian economy was on course to grow 6% this year, a requirement to absorb “new entrants into the labor market.” But the country’s problems are based on youth unemployment, estimated at much higher than the country-wide average of 9%, and food price inflation, at 17% and supported by heavy subsidies. Riots in Tunisia, which forced president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to dissolve the government, were sparked by spiking food costs and poverty in the fellow North African country. Fears that a global food crisis is around the corner have fueled speculation of contagion across North Africa and eventually the Middle East. (Read On the Verge of a Global Food Crisis).

Sovereign debt and commodity prices have gone haywire as well. Bloomberg reports that “Egyptian government’s dollar bonds due April 2020 fell, sending yields to a record high. Yields on the debt rose 30 basis points to 6.61 percent at 3 p.m. in London, extending this week’s increase to 89 basis points, [while] the cost to insure the country’s debt against default for five years rose 11 basis points from yesterday, to 387, according to CMA prices.” And by midday, the Journal reported the credit-default swaps of Egyptian sovereign debt had spiked 450 basis points (the cost of insuring $10 million of Egyptian sovereign debt over 5 years would be $450,000). A huge spike yes, yet insuring Egyptian debt is still cheaper than its Portuguese, Irish, and Greek Equivalents.

The situation could have ripple effects worldwide if the Suez Canal becomes jeopardized or even shut down. According to Canaccord Genuity, “this may be impactful as approximately 1.8 million bb/d of oil was transported through the Suez Canal in 2009. A closure of the canal would result in an extra 6,000 miles of travel for any oil being transported out of the region, an additional cost which could drive up oil prices.” International oil prices are already racing towards the $100 a barrel mark. Brent crude oil contracts for March, “the global benchmark,” hit their highest level since late 2008 at $99.63 per barrel on January 28. West Texas Intermediate March futures were up 4.2% to $89.21. Even gold began to pick up, with Comex February gold spiking in tandem with oil, up 1.7% on January 28 to $1,341.20.

The outcome of any massive uprising is unpredictable. It is especially so in Egypt, where 30 years of uninterrupted rule by Hosni Mubarak, who succeeded president Anwar Sadat after his assassination in 1981 (see video below), are being questioned by an angry youth movement and dissident politicians like Nobel peace laureate and former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei.
 
The events in Egypt this week are serious and the WILL affect us.
And, I think it's also worth observing how easily the government was able to kill all internet and cell phone ability within the country. This is especially worth note when you remember that there's discussion right now about giving our President an internet "kill switch." This is a country of 83 million people.

But the geo-political consequences of today need to be discussed. The violence and uprising is spreading through the other "moderate," for lack of a better word, nations in the region. Syria has just killed their internet..
 
Oil Price

Oil spiking due to speculators driving up prices not shortage of oil.

Panic mongers spreading stories which have little if any effect on your life.

Give it a week or two to blow over.
 
Panic mongers spreading stories which have little if any effect on your life.

But there is an effect of these stories on the market. It is not an "artificial" effect, either, but a very real effect that results in a higher price of gas.
 
But there is an effect of these stories on the market. It is not an "artificial" effect, either, but a very real effect that results in a higher price of gas.


Speaking of which, how much are you presently paying for gas in your area?
Here in Los Angeles, regular unleaded is on adverage $3.39 a gallon, and premium (which my Tbird has to have) is $3.59 a gallon, and it seems the price is going up daily.
Bob.
 
I heard an Egypt joke on the radio this morning:

An aide rushes into President Mubarak's office, shouting, "Sir, sir! We finally got it; we have your farewell speech to the people ready!"

Mubarak looks calmly at his aide and replies, "Why? Are they going somewhere?"
 
On the news, they just said that the low price in Oklahoma City is $2.75/gal, with the average running around $3/gal.
 
Oil spiking due to speculators driving up prices not shortage of oil.

Panic mongers spreading stories which have little if any effect on your life.

Give it a week or two to blow over.

Panic mongers?
Elaborate.
You think this is just going to "blow over?"

I couldn't disagree with you more.
But maybe this could blow over like it did in Iran, in 1979.

And there's no reason to identify the revolutionary trend around world right now, the potential tipping point that was Tunisia and now Egypt, the Shiite majorities throughout the region with Sunni governments, or the fact that the far left Western groups or the risk of transportation through the Suez Canal being restricted, or the fact that radical groups around the Western world are also ceasing on these events.... And mentioning the Muslim Brotherhood..... that's all panic mongering.

If gas hits $150/barrel, what happens to our desperate economy?
What happens on our streets?
What response does our government take?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Panic mongers?
Elaborate.
You think this is just going to "blow over?"

I couldn't disagree with you more.
But maybe this could blow over like it did in Iran, in 1979.

So, it will change - Egypt might not have a strong arm US backed dictator - Or do you think that should be what our policy should continue to be Cal? It seems to work so well....

If gas hits $150/barrel, what happens to our desperate economy?
What happens on our streets?
What response does our government take?
Why the government should do nothing - market forces dictate what the price should be - correct?

Gas here - around $2.85 for regular...
 
So, it will change - Egypt might not have a strong arm US backed dictator - Or do you think that should be what our policy should continue to be Cal? It seems to work so well....

I don't understand what you're asking me.
There isn't a absolute right/wrong answer available to answer anymore. Now it's an issue of global security. The events of this past week continue to make the world less stable and secure. I've been talking about how volatile the world is for a while now, "arch duke Ferdinand" moments...

The way you framed your question implies that you would have been cheering when the Shah left Iran in exile in 1979 as well. That seems to have worked out so well, didn't it?

I guess it's important to determine HOW you view the events, or what you suspect the outcome will be.
If they move towards a true, sustainable Democrat system, consistent with Western sensibilities, that WOULD be positive.
Based on my study of the region, the culture, and that country, I do not expect that to be the long term outcome.

Why the government should do nothing - market forces dictate what the price should be - correct?

Again, I don't know what it is your asking me.
High energy prices devastate the economy.
Our economy is a wreck right now, exploding energy prices would plunge it into the second of the double dips.

The federal government is bankrupt. States are bankrupt.

Much like in Euorpe, the riots in Egypt were first triggered in response to the unemployment, rising food prices, and cuts in social welfare. (The involvement of Marxist agitators and the Muslim Brotherhood has yet to be determined.)

As the economic conditions deteriorate in this country, as dependence on government continues to expand while various governments venture further into bankruptcy. When "austerity measures" or budget cuts are forced, you don't think it's possible to see similar discontent in some U.S. cities as we're seeing through out Europe and the Middle East?

You don't think that a deep energy crisis, made worse after we stopped all Gulf drilling and are watching those drilling platforms move down to South America, might aggravate or even trigger it?

And it was interesting how shortly after there was discussion about giving the President an "internet kill switch," we saw the Egyptians do precisely that in response to the protests?

More specific to Egypt though, what's the positive outcome you foresee? An Elbaredi/Brotherhood unity government which will quickly devolve into a 83,000,000 person Shi'ite sharia state, aligned with Iran, hostile towards Israel, and triggering a wave of uprisings through out the Muslim world?

But, I'm sure that'll all work out for us, right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(The involvement of Marxist agitators and the Muslim Brotherhood has yet to be determined.)
FWIW, one of the reports I heard on the radio this morning said that when people have tried to start religious-oriented chanting in the protests they've been shouted down by those who want to keep it purely about the current regime.
 
FWIW, one of the reports I heard on the radio this morning said that when people have tried to start religious-oriented chanting in the protests they've been shouted down by those who want to keep it purely about the current regime.

Don't get a false sense of confidence, that's not worth an awful lot.
The media narrative has not been willing to honestly discuss the Muslim Brotherhood in this story.

And while the majority on the street aren't Brotherhood, they are rioting for non-religious reasons, that doesn't really shape the outcome of the events. The Iranian revolution wasn't all jihadist types either. The problem is afterward.

When the strongman flees, the "unity" government that follows is usually quickly taken over by the Muslim extremist group related to the Brotherhood. That's because they are the most politically savvy and politically organized/unified group in the country.

The horrible reality is we don't really know what's going on on the ground in Egypt. I also suspect, much like in 1979, our intelligence community has been caught off guard as well.

But I don't think it's isolated. When viewing it, we need to be careful to not view it with Western sensibilities, or as an isolated event in the region or the world.
 
This is one of the reasons the current administration should allow more drilling in the US and off the US shores.

If we were energy independent, we wouldn't be worrying about oil prices going up because a group of jackasses decide to start civil unrest thousands of miles away.

We have the reserves, let us put our space-age technology to work and extract them!
 
I don't understand what you're asking me.
There isn't a absolute right/wrong answer available to answer anymore. Now it's an issue of global security. The events of this past week continue to make the world less stable and secure. I've been talking about how volatile the world is for a while now, "arch duke Ferdinand" moments...

The way you framed your question implies that you would have been cheering when the Shah left Iran in exile in 1979 as well. That seems to have worked out so well, didn't it?
WWIII?

Unless China wants to get involved in a war against the US, I don't see it.

I have thought for a long time that the US backing strong arm dictators haven't been in our best interests - and haven't been in the interests of the people who live in those countries. What it does eventually, as it did in Iran, is leave us with an angry populace who blames the US for the oppression. If we are so convinced that self government works best - maybe we should practice what we preach and allow people in other countries decide on their government.

Again, I don't know what it is your asking me.
High energy prices devastate the economy.
Our economy is a wreck right now, exploding energy prices would plunge it into the second of the double dips.

The federal government is bankrupt. States are bankrupt.

So, what would you have the government do regarding what will probably be escalating gas prices for the next few months?

You don't think that a deep energy crisis, made worse after we stopped all Gulf drilling and are watching those drilling platforms move down to South America, might aggravate or even trigger it?

And it was interesting how shortly after there was discussion about giving the President an "internet kill switch," we saw the Egyptians do precisely that in response to the protests?

Do you have any idea of how much of our oil comes from the gulf? And do you know that the money that was drilling in the gulf is now being spent doing horizontal fractal drilling throughout the midwest?

We are much better off moving off the middle east oil teat and moving over to wind, solar, geo, and yes, domestic oil. When oil gets to $100 a barrel, things shift dramatically, and many more things become viable here in the US. I would gladly pay $.25 a gallon more - if it means we are fostering domestic energy. The most important thing here is keep looking for opportunities to become energy independent, which will be a combination of many different energy delivery systems.

Do you really think that in the US an internet 'kill switch' is even a remote reality?

More specific to Egypt though, what's the positive outcome you foresee? An Elbaredi/Brotherhood unity government which will quickly devolve into a 83,000,000 person Shi'ite sharia state, aligned with Iran, hostile towards Israel, and triggering a wave of uprisings through out the Muslim world?

But, I'm sure that'll all work out for us, right?

I believe that the Egyptian people can decide for themselves the government they want.
 
Do you have any idea of how much of our oil comes from the gulf?

Allude to the fact, yet avoid any examination of the reasons for it. Nice to see you still know how to dance around an issue...

We are much better off moving off the middle east oil teat and moving over to wind, solar, geo, and yes, domestic oil.

:rolleyes:

Why don't we simply run our cars off of unicorns and rainbows?

Wind energy, solar energy, etc are dangerously UNREALISTIC. Yet the Left makes sure those are the ONLY options available in any attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Anyone pushing wind energy and/or solar energy as a viable alternative is not interested in a serious discussion on how to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately that is ALL that the Left is interested in because they keep pushing restrictions on domestic oil production in a rather transparent attempt to artificially MAKE oil an economically unrealistic energy source.
 
This is one of the reasons the current administration should allow more drilling in the US and off the US shores.

If we were energy independent, we wouldn't be worrying about oil prices going up because a group of jackasses decide to start civil unrest thousands of miles away.

We have the reserves, let us put our space-age technology to work and extract them!

i read but don't post over here in the political forum, but in this case, :iconcur:
reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
 
We are much better off moving off the middle east oil teat and moving over to wind, solar, geo, and yes, domestic oil.

thats a very complicated thing to do.. even if we start now, it will be years before we can start reducing our oil dependency.
better get on it i guess, but that stuff is gonna be pricey!
 
WWIII?
Unless China wants to get involved in a war against the US, I don't see it.
What don't you see?
That a seemingly small event can trigger a chain reaction of events that destabilize the a region and draw in foreign powers for a variety of motivations?

If we are so convinced that self government works best - maybe we should practice what we preach and allow people in other countries decide on their government
This is a very complicated subject and it's only possible to discuss if you are willing to recognize that consequences of such actions, both pro and con.

If the Muslim Brotherhood takes control of that government, are you prepared to see an escalation of violence in that region? If, as it would appear, that the Brotherhood controls the government, we can be assured they will not respect the treaty with Israel and they will not prevent weapons transfers through their shared border. They they will also spread terror in the region, escalating the shi'ite/sunni conflicts through out the Muslim world.

And do you think that the Muslim Brotherhood will be any more humanitarian than this current regime?

So, what would you have the government do regarding what will probably be escalating gas prices for the next few months?
You keep re-framing and re-asking a question that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. The government shouldn't do anything directly regarding fuel prices.

Do you have any idea of how much of our oil comes from the gulf? And do you know that the money that was drilling in the gulf is now being spent doing horizontal fractal drilling throughout the midwest?
Answer this question for me, then make a specific point and I'll address it.
So far, you've seemingly been interested in trying to bait me into slightly off topic subjects, in order to set up your predetermined rhetoric.

We are much better off moving off the middle east oil teat and moving over to wind, solar, geo, and yes, domestic oil.
Why did you not include nuclear power in that list?
Of your list, only the domestic drilling is a viable option within the foreseeable future, yet we see federal policy that has reduced the available drilling in the Gulf, expansions of federally protected lands, and, in the response to the BP spill, has essentially driven the industry's resources to be tied up in South America for years.

When oil gets to $100 a barrel, things shift dramatically, and many more things become viable here in the US. I would gladly pay $.25 a gallon more - if it means we are fostering domestic energy.
So, what you're saying is, use government regulatory power to manipulate markets and the buying decisions of the public, against or despite their will, in order to achieve political and economic outcomes that you deem important.

Rather than letting these things happen naturally, or as a result of the freemarket, you'd prefer to have D.C. manipulate things because they "know what's best."

But why are you discussing a hypothetical $.25 additional federal gas tax when the market place could conceivably push gas prices over $100 shortly anyway.

Do you really think that in the US an internet 'kill switch' is even a remote reality?
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/?FuseAction=home.Cybersecurity

I believe that the Egyptian people can decide for themselves the government they want.
And what do you think the outcome will be?
 
Reducing our dependency on foreign oil is different then reducing our dependency on oil. The former is an (economically) realistic goal while the latter is much more utopian in nature.

Unfortunately, those in power accept these two as one in the same and therefore assume that alternative energy sources are the only viable solution (though they rarely admit as much). Nevermind that those "alternatives" are determined not by economic reality, but by corporatism, political payoffs and/or radical, nihilistic utopian agendas (environmentalism).
 
Allude to the fact, yet avoid any examination of the reasons for it. Nice to see you still know how to dance around an issue...

:rolleyes:

Why don't we simply run our cars off of unicorns and rainbows?

Wind energy, solar energy, etc are dangerously UNREALISTIC. Yet the Left makes sure those are the ONLY options available in any attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Didn't see where I added domestic oil shag? Wow - why are you running on like this - ah, yes, pigeonhole... label...

We need to up our domestic oil capacity - we need to drill, we need to find ways to get oil out of oil shale economically, there are lots of things we need to do regarding oil. But one great way - rather than use oil for things other than transportation (such as home heating) is to really develop solar, wind, natural gas, for things that don't move. Not only is this good for the immediate future - it is great for a future where oil becomes a less 'easily' acquired resource.

Anyone pushing wind energy and/or solar energy as a viable alternative is not interested in a serious discussion on how to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately that is ALL that the Left is interested in because they keep pushing restrictions on domestic oil production in a rather transparent attempt to artificially MAKE oil an economically unrealistic energy source.

Shag - those options are great for things that don't move. And natural gas (which we have huge stores of in the US) is another great option.

Move everything 'energy' here - and the best way to do that is re-arrange how our energy is used. Keep our oil reserves for transportation - a fully electrical transportation grid isn't going to happen anytime soon.

I am all for drilling - and using our oil reserves here shag - and even off-shore, sensibly.

And Chris - complicated yes, but it isn't going to get any easier - the middle east will always be an unstable region of the world, and South America isn't much better. Do it now - suck it up - and then we won't do all this again every few years. The cycle needs to be broken.
 
Reducing our dependency on foreign oil is different then reducing our dependency on oil. The former is an (economically) realistic goal while the latter is much more utopian in nature.

Unfortunately, those in power accept these two as one in the same and therefore assume that alternative energy sources are the only viable solution (though they rarely admit as much). Nevermind that those "alternatives" are determined not by economic reality, but by corporatism, political payoffs and/or radical, nihilistic utopian agendas (environmentalism).

So who here is going 'utopian' on this issue Shag?
 
What don't you see?
That a seemingly small event can trigger a chain reaction of events that destabilize the a region and draw in foreign powers for a variety of motivations?

Nope - I know a small event can have a 'butterfly' effect...

However, why isn't China so worried about the middle east? Perhaps we too should start to look at the middle east similarly - and look at lessening our exposure within the whole equation. We have Israel to worry about - that is why. Is continued exposure to polarizing the Arab world against the west worth it?

This is a very complicated subject and it's only possible to discuss if you are willing to recognize that consequences of such actions, both pro and con.

If the Muslim Brotherhood takes control of that government, are you prepared to see an escalation of violence in that region? If, as it would appear, that the Brotherhood controls the government, we can be assured they will not respect the treaty with Israel and they will not prevent weapons transfers through their shared border. They they will also spread terror in the region, escalating the shi'ite/sunni conflicts through out the Muslim world.

And do you think that the Muslim Brotherhood will be any more humanitarian than this current regime?

More humanitarian - nope - a citizenry that is responsible for itself - yes.

Where does our US imperialism work Cal? Do you have any example of a success story regarding our continued interference with other governments throughout the world? And why do we continue to do this in the Middle East, where our track record is the worse. We obviously don't understand the middle east, and our solutions don't seem to work there.

You keep re-framing and re-asking a question that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. The government shouldn't do anything directly regarding fuel prices.

This is what you said cal... That is why I am asking what you think the government should do?
If gas hits $150/barrel, what happens to our desperate economy?
What happens on our streets?
What response does our government take?

Why did you not include nuclear power in that list?
Of your list, only the domestic drilling is a viable option within the foreseeable future, yet we see federal policy that has reduced the available drilling in the Gulf, expansions of federally protected lands, and, in the response to the BP spill, has essentially driven the industry's resources to be tied up in South America for years.

Just forgot nuclear power - another great option.

There are many, many places that are much better for getting oil than the gulf Cal - we actually would be better off spending the immense funds required for deep water drilling finding an economical solution to oil shale - in fact, as oil gets to $100 oil shale becomes pretty viable. Or spend that money on delivery systems for natural gas. The gulf, and its oil, will be there forever - but, how about moving on-shore for the time being, and let good technology catch up to deep water drilling - which it will in the next few years.

One again, I would rather spend more on energy that was totally independent from foreign concerns, than get 'bargain' energy from the middle east.

So, what you're saying is, use government regulatory power to manipulate markets and the buying decisions of the public, against or despite their will, in order to achieve political and economic outcomes that you deem important.

Rather than letting these things happen naturally, or as a result of the freemarket, you'd prefer to have D.C. manipulate things because they "know what's best."

Wow - where did I say that? I actually think the US should quit stockpiling oil, and let the price really reflect what the world pays - then watch the other alternatives take off. We don't have a freemarket regarding oil right now...

But why are you discussing a hypothetical $.25 additional federal gas tax when the market place could conceivably push gas prices over $100 shortly anyway.

$100 for a gallon of gas - when do you think that will happen Cal? And I never mentioned $.25 from TAXES - I am very willing to have oil go to $100 a barrel, pay the extra in gas - and watch it come back onshore - because so many good things happen in the US energy business when that $100 price is reached.


So, do you think that we will have a kill switch on the internet Cal - do you really think this will happen?

And what do you think the outcome will be?

If the Egyptian people govern themselves, I think then the outcome will reflect them, instead of the US's idea of how we want the middle east to look.
 
We need to up our domestic oil capacity - we need to drill, we need to find ways to get oil out of oil shale economically, there are lots of things we need to do regarding oil. But

There always seems to be a "but" with any supposed "agreement" you have with non-leftist thought...

one great way - rather than use oil for things other than transportation (such as home heating) is to really develop solar, wind, natural gas, for things that don't move.

Solar energy, wind energy and most "renewable" energy are a pipe dream. Any REALISTIC discussion of energy policy will not waste time with them.

However, continuously injecting them into the discussion does serve to falsely legitimize them and promote mal-distribution of scarce resources toward that fantasy; paying off constituents and lobbyists in the process.

The TRUTH is that the ONLY way those "alternatives" appear feasibly is with MASSIVE government subsidies and/or regulations in their favor (hence the uptick in wind energy lobbying). In short, wind and solar energy are NOT economically feasible as an alternative.

In the inverse (and as Cal pointed out), it is interested that you keep forgetting nuclear energy.
 
There always seems to be a "but" with any supposed "agreement" you have with non-leftist thought...

Solar energy, wind energy and most "renewable" energy are a pipe dream. Any REALISTIC discussion of energy policy will not waste time with them.

However, continuously injecting them into the discussion does serve to falsely legitimize them and promote mal-distribution of scarce resources toward that fantasy; paying off constituents and lobbyists in the process.

They are legitimate - because, cheap oil isn't a 'forever' option Shag. Cheap oil is waning, and expensive oil - such as deepwater oil and oil shale is becoming what we have left. Wind is cheap, as technology advances. Solar is cheap - as technology advances. We have over a century of technology based on oil - so it is cheapest. As we go down that same technology road with other energy, the same result happens - economies of scale, improved delivery systems, etc. Eventually, they too will become cheap - and in fact, they can become 'cheaper'.

The TRUTH is that the ONLY way those "alternatives" appear feasibly is with MASSIVE government subsidies and/or regulations in their favor (hence the uptick in wind energy lobbying). In short, wind and solar energy are NOT economically feasible as an alternative.

In the inverse (and as Cal pointed out), it is interested that you keep forgetting nuclear energy.

Once again - I just forgot nuclear energy. It is a great example of economies of scale. Right now, energy from nuclear power is extremely expensive - but, as more plants go on-line, and better disposal systems are available - the cost per kilowatt goes down. Build all the plants the same - just as they do in France, bring the costs way down.

And how exactly does that help with our transportation problems - it doesn't remove the need for oil, unless it replaces oil - just as I indicated shag. If it replaces it on the power grid, and in fact, it will really help if some of our vehicles use electricity for power - then the nuclear power plant works within the transportation sector as well.
 

Staff online

Members online

Back
Top