Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oil from Coal....Boon, Bane, or Boondoggle? (posted 12/31/2001)
various links | 12-31-01 | backhoe

Posted on 12/31/2001 5:37:24 AM PST by backhoe

On the way to "looking up other things" I ran across an old subject- converting coal & other solid-fuel products to liquid or gaseous fuel.

Pioneered by Nazi Germany during WWII, it was also used in South Africa during sanctions against that country.

America has some of the world's largest coal reserves, so the question becomes, "is it a viable alternative to petroleum products which we now import from hostile lands?"

An MBendi Profile: South Africa - History of the Chemical ...
... started producing oil from coal in 1955 its origins can be traced back to 1895 when
coal was first mined on both sides of the Vaal River near Vereeniging. The ...

Coal and Wastes as Oil Alternative Energy and Chemicals
... New thermal degradation methods for producing oil from coal and
biomass using novel dispersed catalysts were presented. ...

Coal Virtual Library
... coke, aggregates, industrial sands and ores. [Published by: KMAC, USA] dot Oil-from-coal
Process The Sasol process starts in the gasification plant where coal ...

Millennium Debate Links Section
... Oil From Coal Process The Sasol process, how coal can be
converted to Crude Gas in the right environment..... ...

Oil Industry Resources
... the expense of fuel oil which is primarily used for bunkering. Oil from coal synfuels
plants owned by Sasol provide a significant proportion of South Africa’s ...

Painting the Town -- Museum of the City of New York
... by the World War II -era development of a process for extracting oil from coal and
the emergence of diesel-fueled ships' engines. Today, the Franklin Delano ...

CHAPTER FOUR: Standard Oil Fuels World War II
... It was announced by Teagle that joint research work on production of oil from coal
had been carried on for some time and that a research laboratory for this ...

Running On Empty
... Fleay's economic heresy extends to questioning whether oil from
coal and other sources will ever come to the rescue. ...
www.swenson.com/ron/961024b.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

PDF] Enhanced Oil Recovery Potential in the United States
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... to produce synthetic oil from coal, enhanced recovery ... In Place... . .
23 Petroleum Reservoirs ...


In reviewing this, note the references to early efforts- South Africa circa 1890, New York City in WWII, and the inter-war years activity of Standard Oil.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 12/31/2001 5:37:24 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: backhoe
It is all a matter of price. I believe (off the top of my head) that the Nazi's produced oil at the equivalent rate of $100 per barrel. As I understand it, the cost now would be roughly $65 per barrel. Basically, if the cost comes way down, or the price of oil goes way up, then it will be worthwhile and private industry will produce oil from coal on their own without the need for the government to get involved.
2 posted on 12/31/2001 5:45:51 AM PST by Rodney King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
The big coal reserves are in Wyoming with a moisture content of 35 percent. There is one facility in place that processes the moisture out (and thereby reduces freight costs)moving the BTU value from 8300 to 11,000 per pound. The coal is still coal, tho. The US still has vast quantities of oil shale which might be easier to process into hydrocarbons.
3 posted on 12/31/2001 5:51:28 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
One of Americas problems...sanctions will never be imposed on it and Americans will never appricate the vast natural wealth and resources it has

Having lived on the other side of sanctions first in Rhodesia then South Africa when various products we were dependent on were no longer available we found alternative solutions...granted the cost on somethings increased but it also spurred economic growth were there had been none....

No question in my mind that America could self support its energy needs for the next hundred years...but the enviro nazis will make sure this never happens and politicians will remain to weak to challenge them!

4 posted on 12/31/2001 5:52:46 AM PST by robnoel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
We should use our military force in Saudi Arabia to take over that country. Assign a new moderate leadership. This would prevent the usage of the billions of dollars of petrole revenues to fund terrorists.

Once we finished with Saudi Arabia, we need to invade Iran, and install a moderate leadership. Outlaw any political Islamic parties.

5 posted on 12/31/2001 5:54:34 AM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
Absolutely correct. Even if the U.S. had all the oil reserves it needs for the next ten million years, it would still import oil from the Middle East if it is cheaper that way.

It was known for years that the tar sands of northern Alberta contained vast oil reserves that probably exceed Saudi Arabia's, but nobody bothered to get it until Suncor developed a relatively inexpensive extraction method back in the 1980s.

6 posted on 12/31/2001 5:58:49 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: robnoel
Price is the controlling factor. We spend far more in military expenditures than if we spent the same amount for extracting oil from coal or shale. We could easily furnish our own energy converting to nuclear and hydro for power generation and using our present domestic oil supply for cars and trucks.
7 posted on 12/31/2001 5:59:51 AM PST by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
I think we could get the costs down a lot less, given the state of current refining technology, compared with WWII Germany.

I think it's good that we exhaust the middle east supply first, then that will leave us a world leader in energy production. It would be great to sell oil to the saudis for $100 a barrel.

8 posted on 12/31/2001 6:06:11 AM PST by glockmeister40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: meenie
Price is the controlling factor.

Political Will - is the controlling factor. And right now the Petro Dollars appears to be globally useful.

Price can always be brought down with technological advances and volume of scale.


9 posted on 12/31/2001 6:07:36 AM PST by bluetoad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: meenie
Assuming Desert Storm and related expenditures were all about oil, the cost of a gallon of gasoline would be closer to $10 than about $1.
10 posted on 12/31/2001 6:07:49 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
I read an article here, about a month or two ago, about tar sands in Canada. Apparently there are vast areas of this that are untapped. I visualize tar sands as being on the surface, like on a beach, but I could be mistaken. I know nothing about the technical aspects of refining this resource, but it appears that the mining and shipping part of the equation would be fairly straight-forward.

FReegards,

11 posted on 12/31/2001 6:11:48 AM PST by VMI70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
I'll second (or third) the opinion that price is the controlling factor. When I was a young man just out on my own, gasoline was about 25c a gallon in some places. Our cars weren't as fuel efficient as the cars today, but not as bad as some would have you believe. My 305 cubic inch V8 Mustang got about 25 miles to the gallon at 75 MPH, which isn't bad. Now going forward through hyper-inflation to today, we see gasoline around $1.00 per gallon in some places. Adjusting for inflation, it's cheaper now than 30 years ago. I heard a lecture from an MIT professor in the early 70's that claimed we'd be about out of oil by now and gasoline would be over $10 a gallon if you could find it! But it's nice to know that alternatives like ethanol (pure or additive) and oil from coal can serve as a saftey net if the price of oil should get very high, like over $50 a barrel.

That said, we definitely need a more rational nuclear power program in the country. We shouldn't be using hydrocarbons for generating bulk electricity, since they are much better used as easily transported and stored forms of energy for smaller requirements like vehicles and stand-by power generation. And there's some hope that perhaps in another 30 years, controlled fusion power plants will be practical.

12 posted on 12/31/2001 6:18:22 AM PST by Gordian Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King;Eric in the Ozarks
Thanks for looking.... I *was* wondering about the cost of this. I recall a post here around a month or so ago where the Canadians were claiming to have gotten oil-shale extraction costs down to the $12 a barrel range, whereas it had been around $35+ a barrel.
13 posted on 12/31/2001 6:19:24 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gordian Blade
That said, we definitely need a more rational nuclear power program in the country. We shouldn't be using hydrocarbons for generating bulk electricity

You'll get no argument from me!

I remember 27 cent gasoline, and Sunoco 260 all too well.....

14 posted on 12/31/2001 6:22:01 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
I remember seeing an article in the late 70's about a plant that could be grown that either produced or could be processed in to a latex like substance from which petroleum products could be made.

If I remember correctly, the cost of refinement (1970 dollars) was around $35 per barrel. This was reported in Popular Science, I believe.

The article also mentioned the ideal climate for this plant was arid with a lot of sun.

15 posted on 12/31/2001 6:23:34 AM PST by stylin_geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robnoel
Hello, Robby.... yes, it's all a matter of political will and courage. I live on the Atlantic seaboard, and I know there's gas & oil offshore- we just need to go get the stuff! And there are plenty of energy reserves on the continent, too... coal, oil, and natural gas, there for the taking.
16 posted on 12/31/2001 6:25:32 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
True. It basically means oil can, at worst, triple in price before alternative feedstocks and sources kick in. And if oil shale mining grew to where there were economies of scale, the minimum support price would probably fall to about $40/bbl. But with oil production being cut to try to get to $25/bbl, oil shale will only happen if there is some production cost breakthrough.

Which all goes to show that we will probably be burning oil for 300 more years, at least.

17 posted on 12/31/2001 6:26:22 AM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
I don't recall that specific post, but Canada is full of fraudulent companies that have falsely claimed such techonology. Solv-Ex was one of them.
18 posted on 12/31/2001 6:27:22 AM PST by Rodney King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Where does the $10 per gallon number come from? I'd like to see the calculation; I doubt the number. Just for the sake of argument, we'll assume that the only benefit of Desert Storm was securing "the free flow of oil at market prices," as Rush says. Don't forget that the world economic powers chipped in for the cost of Desert Storm, so that the cost is spread over the entire world's consumption of oil. Also, the cost needs to be amortized over the approximately 10 years of stability it bought us. To be fair, you can add in the continuing cost of the no-fly zone and troop presence in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
19 posted on 12/31/2001 6:28:09 AM PST by Gordian Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
Well, rats! Couldn't find the story or the link.... the price sticks in my mind, but you may have a point about fraudulent claims- it wouldn't be the first time!
20 posted on 12/31/2001 6:41:11 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
We need a Manhattan type project with one goal. Total energy independence from the rest of the world.
21 posted on 12/31/2001 6:44:38 AM PST by isthisnickcool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King; backhoe; VMI70
I've read several published sources indicating that the oil reserves in the tar sands region of northern Alberta are substantial enough to maintain current levels of consumption in North America for 500 years. The major problem was getting it out -- Suncor developed an extraction method back in the 1980s that allows them to mine it (as opposed to drilling it) for about $12 per barrel, and the area around Fort McMurray has experienced a tremendous boom over the last two decades. As time goes on, the problem is that the oil will be more difficult to extract. The oil sands are between two layers of the earth's crust that angle down from the surface, and as time goes on it will be necessary to extract it from greater depths.

In addition to these issues, you have to keep in mind that Saudi oil is much more "pure" and does not require much refining, while tar sands oil is about as crummy as it gets and must be refined extensively.

22 posted on 12/31/2001 6:50:29 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
a Manhattan type project with one goal. Total energy independence

No argument from me... even France had the wits after the '73 embargo to launch their Super Phoenix reactor program and now get about 75% of electric power from nuclear plants. We should not have gotten so far behind.

23 posted on 12/31/2001 6:52:50 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
We need a Manhattan type project with one goal. Total energy independence from the rest of the world.

I partially agree. We need to plan for energy independence but it should not be a secret. And, the problem is energy independence, not oil independent. We may be displaying some ignorance or arrogance in thinking in terms of oil only. There are other ways of getting around and heating things up. I've lived in cultures where transportation was not dominated by automobiles. There are advantages to not having to own, maintain, and store one or more cars. And, too many people accept driving and/or commuting an hour or more each way to work. Our culture puts us in a position of being energy dependent. It doesn't have to be that way.

24 posted on 12/31/2001 7:08:03 AM PST by James Lewis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
....I recall a post here around a month or so ago where the Canadians were claiming to have gotten oil-shale extraction costs down to the $12 a barrel range, whereas it had been around $35+ a barrel.....

Don't know about the $12 bbl price but here are a couple articles on oil shale... not the easiest process going and still expensive.


25 posted on 12/31/2001 7:15:26 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: robnoel
I wonder to what extent the environmental movement may have been funded by oil-producing countries and the oil industry. Does anybody know?
26 posted on 12/31/2001 7:21:39 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Appreciate that info- it jogs my memory; that's about what I recall reading a month or so ago.
27 posted on 12/31/2001 7:38:35 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: deport
Appreciate the links- saved to disc!
28 posted on 12/31/2001 7:40:40 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: James Lewis
However, our society does allow us the choice to drive to and from work, or not, as the case may be. Right now, if the greenies have their way, this choice will be removed, through government policy. Be very careful when you talk about how society can be remolded, as this is a euphemism for government control and or policy which strikes at the very foundation of our freedoms.
29 posted on 12/31/2001 8:16:55 AM PST by stylin_geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gordian Blade
Add it in, then. My $10 was a pure hip-shot without factual basis. However, I would suggest the cost of gasoline is underwritten by many other things, including our friendship with the Saudis which many Americans are finding distasteful.
The various tar sands projects in Alberta are the sleeping giant in the North American oil patch. Shell, Suncor (Sun Oil of Canada) Koch and a half dozen other oil companies are mining this stuff, cooking it on site and shoving the light crude down the Interprovincial and other crude pipelines into the US and over to Canadian refineries at Sarnia. Within a few years, 850,000 to 1 million bbls/day will flow from this source. Best of all, its in friendly hands--not even the idiots in US Congress can prevent it.
30 posted on 12/31/2001 8:56:34 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: deport
Exxon tried oil shale near Rifle, Colorado in the early 1970's. I think they mined and crushed the stuff into two to four inch topsize, then irradiated the shale to get the oil to come out. Trouble was, the four inch chunks swelled up to six inches, so if the process had been followed (it took $40 crude to payout) the hillsides and mountains would become large spoil piles several hundred feet taller than when the project began.
Take that concept to your weekly Greenpeace meeting and whattaya get ?
31 posted on 12/31/2001 9:05:41 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Yep... remove the shale leave a hole and then fill it back up but the problem is what do you do with the excess material after it's expanded from the heating process.... LOL. I thought the increase size was bigger but I couldn't remember.

Gulf Oil was there also and had prefected their operation to a point that they asked the Feds to raise their production quota from their current level and the Feds told them to get another 80 something enviormental permits... Needless to say Gulf said see you later.

32 posted on 12/31/2001 9:17:37 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I wonder to what extent the environmental movement may have been funded by oil-producing countries and the oil industry. Does anybody know?

I do, but I can't say, it's classified. :-) Now that was a waste of bandwidth, wasn't it?

33 posted on 12/31/2001 10:12:53 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: deport
In any mining endeavor, a 25 percent swell factor should be considered in turning bank yards into heaped yards. (Surface mining a four or five foot coal seam will still leave the ground higher, not lower.) Another way to see this is to dig a hole in your back yard, even taking out the rocks you find, then try to get all the dirt back in the same hole--it won't fit.
I recall the swelling from Exxon's (and maybe Gulf's too) irradiation was in additional to the usual swell factor. The public relations implications were enormous.
34 posted on 12/31/2001 10:21:26 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
These folks didn't need any help to become as stupid as they are.
35 posted on 12/31/2001 10:22:49 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Aha! I knew I remembered a post by someone about this. It must have been you who wrote it. To me, it is a fascinating story and seems like the resource has great potential. Thanks for the update!

FReegards,

36 posted on 12/31/2001 11:08:56 AM PST by VMI70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: VMI70;all
Good golly! This thing's still going?

Thank you all for your comments, links, and info!

37 posted on 12/31/2001 11:22:17 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: stylin_geek
I believe you refer to the Jojoba plant; interestingly, the chemical composition of its oil is compatible with sperm-whale oil and GM used it as a differential additive for their "Posi-Lok" limited-slip rearend and front differentials so that they could better negotiate turns; the whales had become protected and their oil wasn't plentiful, so science came to the rescue.

The above sentence was from memory, so I checked Google.com, here's what I got: Click for site

38 posted on 12/31/2001 11:36:41 AM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Hey, it's a good thread and this subject needs addressing.

Thank YOU.

FReegards, and Happy New Year!

39 posted on 12/31/2001 2:07:55 PM PST by VMI70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
GM used it as a differential additive for their "Posi-Lok" limited-slip rearend

Well, I'll be dogged! Didn't know that!

40 posted on 12/31/2001 2:29:21 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: VMI70
Happy New Year, VMI70!
41 posted on 12/31/2001 2:30:10 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Coal is being turned into natural gas in Beulah, N.D., the only large-scale synfuels plant in the United States. Lots of byproducts. Years and years of subsidies through fixed-price contracts for natural gas, and eventual financial collapse resulted. However, with natural gas prices elevated - last time I looked -- it apparently is doing ok.

<a HREF="http://www.dakotagas.com/</A>

42 posted on 12/31/2001 2:36:33 PM PST by Otto Krueger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Otto Krueger
Appreciate the info:

-http://www.dakotagas.com/--

43 posted on 12/31/2001 2:47:23 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: VMI70
LOL!

Everyone in Alberta knows quite a bit about the oil, gas and cattle industries, even those who never worked in one of them!

44 posted on 12/31/2001 2:55:51 PM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Personally, I doubt it. The staunch enviromentalists have, imo, the characteristics of a religious movement. What would be interesting is to what extent enzymes could be bioengineered to expedite this conversion process. I suspect something like gold-leaching would be possible here too.
45 posted on 01/01/2002 11:53:45 AM PST by a history buff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
yeah, but is it affordable?

i remember in the late seventies and early eighties they were gearing up for colorado oil shale near parachute colorado. hoards of people arrived. construction companies built hundreds of houses.

meanwhile, the left was gearing up for a propaganda war. a journalist friend of mine invited me to go along in an suv to look at the surface mining. the trip was arranged by a college professor who got the mining company to permit him to pass the corporate security. my hosts discussed their propaganda task.

then, poof! opec lowered the price of oil and everything disappeared. boom to bust.

46 posted on 01/01/2002 12:01:24 PM PST by ken21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21
Like all things, price counts... up on #2, RK quoted $65 a barrel; obviously out of the question unless oil goes sky-high.

Just anecdotally, I recall hearing that the Germans had a lot of problems with fuel & lube oil gotten from coal... supposedly it was not as good as that cracked from liquid petroleum.... but this is from a long-ago memory, and not reliable.

The bigger point is, however, that even without going more heavily nuclear ( which I think should be top priority ) we have plenty of energy on our own continent, and offshore, that it is the height of folly to depend on those thugs in the middle east for oil & gas.

By the way, I keep forgetting to add these links:

Oil may not be a dwindling resource after all:

The world has more oil not less

The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the Earth
Thomas Gold
U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1570, The Future of Energy Gases, 1993

PETROLEUM RESERVES EVALUATED WITH MODERN PETROLEUM SCIENCE

Another Washington Post article here

And how costly was clinton's celebrity-driven scam in Utah?

The Utah Coal Lockup: A trillion dollar Lippo payoff?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/lippo.htm

Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument: Conservation and ...
Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument: Conservation
and Controversy. Petrified Woody's ...
Description: "This million-plus acre area needs protection from uncontrolled development, but at what cost?...

-``Behind Closed Doors: The Abuse of Trust And Discretion In The Establishment Of The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.''--

-Four Years Later, Locals Still Decry Clinton Monument --

-Coalgate--that ugly Lippo-Klink-Redford connection to tyranny--

-Clinton's Utah deal not justified-WND story--

Energy and Mineral Resources, Grand Staircase - Escalante ...
Utah Geological Survey. ... A Preliminary Assessment of Energy and Mineral Resources
within the Grand Staircase - Escalante National Monument. ...

47 posted on 01/01/2002 1:24:41 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
no disagreement here.

the nuclear battle was fought and lost a generation ago when jane fonda made that anti-nuclear movie, and many people believed it. what a cheap piece of propaganda.

there's oil off the california coast but baboxer isn't going to let go of it.

48 posted on 01/01/2002 1:31:54 PM PST by ken21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ken21
what a cheap piece of propaganda

Yep, "The China Syndrome"-- good example of why people should not accept celebrities as experts on anything except what they do for a living.

On the bright side, a whole generation has grown up with Homer Simpson working in a nuclear plant ( yes, I know he's a 'toon, but pop culture has serious influence! ) and he's still OK....

Seriously, what we need is a "re-educate the public" program about how safe US Navy reactors are, how drilling offshore causes less pollution that natural seepage, etc.

49 posted on 01/01/2002 2:25:10 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Petro bump^
50 posted on 01/16/2002 3:19:19 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson