Home > Current Affairs, Politics - Domestic, Politics - International, The EYE-BALL EnvironmentZone, The EYE-BALL FMZ - [Financial Markets Zone ], The EYE-BALL GURU, The EYE-BALL Opinion > EYE-BALL Guru on – The “CARBON v CLIMATE CHANGE” Debate – Part 1 – OIL and its Contribution …

EYE-BALL Guru on – The “CARBON v CLIMATE CHANGE” Debate – Part 1 – OIL and its Contribution …

July 7, 2012


Latest GURU Posts:
July 19th:The “LIBOR” Scandal …Part III – Banks a conduit for crime and corruption!!!

July 14th:

Link to Part IIThe LIBOR Scandal … The Banks are in Trouble … again!!!

July 8th:

Link to Part IThe LIBOR Scandal … about to explode …

July 7th:

The “CARBON v CLIMATE CHANGE” Debate – Part I – OIL and its Contribution –

June 15th:

The GFC – the right of reply … the right to question …

June 8th:

A Global Economic Snapshot …

June 6th:

Treasurer SWAN just won Lotto …

May 29th:

Greek Investors re-engage in Equity Market …

May 28th:

An example of a Government truly concerned about Currency appreciation …

May 28th:

Greeks flip over Lagarde’s – ‘pay your taxes’ gibe …

May 24th:

The FACEBOOK (FB) Float:

April 29th:

Joe Hockey’s misfires on Welfare – he should be made to serve a lifetime on welfare existence …

Mar 14th:

US Bank Stress Tests – The Cover-Up and bullshit continues …

Feb 12th:

The Continuing Cost of the High Value A$ …

Dec 23rd 2011:

An Open Letter to German Chancellor ANGELA MERKEL
– None Better …

To see more GURU posts:

click here …

– Part I – OIL and its Contribution –
| Author: EYE-BALL Guru | Republished 29th July 2012 |

Index of Headings: | Click on Heading to read Header Title – return Links provided. |

  1. Introduction:
  2. The Aim:
  3. The Producers:
  4. The Consumers:
  5. Consumers and their Production shortfalls:
  6. The CARBON emission footprint – CIA Data:
  7. The CARBON emission footprint – OECD Data:
  8. Conclusion:
  9. Links to Previous “Carbon’ debate blogs:
  10. Links to Federal Members and Senators contact details.


The debate on Carbon and its contribution to the Global Climate Change Debate has its detractors and supporters. There are some cold hard and indisputable facts on this debate concerning Oil Consumers and Carbon emitters, and those on the conservation side of the fence.

The facts used by scientists and other commentators from both sides of the debate that have produced the global concerns and debate over ‘climate change’, and its causes – have largely been distorted to suit and support ‘paid for’ opinions to ensure continued funding.

The EYE-BALL Opinion wrote a blog a few days ago about a well-known and respected ‘Climate Change’ scientist – James Lovelock who has reversed his dooms day climate predictions for the planet – read that blog here.  His recant has not yet been widely reported in the main stream media – his comments as to why he has reversed his position challenges all the past scientific recommendations used to formulate the ‘carbon-emissions’ trading schemes currently working their way through Governments around the world.

Australia introduced its ‘Carbon Tax’ on the 1st July 2012. The Tax has been greeted with great scepticism from an engaged and enraged electorate despite flash polls indicating up to 60% support the ‘climate change’ theory – if not the Tax.

New Zealand who initially indicated they were also going to introduce a ‘Carbon Emissions’ scheme have in the last week announced they have scrapped those plans due to the potential for further economic cost on the back of the GFC still impacting on their economy.

The Gillard led Australian Labor Government who promised the electorate before the 2010 election ‘there would be no ‘Carbon Tax’ under a Government I lead’ – reversed her position in a deal with the GREENS to enable the formation of a Minority Government.  The polls have deserted this Gillard Labor Government over this ‘Carbon Tax’, and many other matters currently working their way through the Legal system and the Parliament.

Back to Index

The Aim:

This ‘Carbon Tax’ story has many angles – the intent during this series of posts on the ‘CARBON’ debate is to offer commentary and contra opinion on where Government’s around the World have erred in their rush to introduce far-reaching, and impacting legislation based on Carbon emissions and its impact on Climate Change.   The research presented here and in future blogs will attempt to show the where and the why.  I do not believe the science is conclusive, and have many unanswered questions on why the ‘panicked’ rush to any form of ‘Carbon Tax’ and/or ‘Carbon Emission’ trading scheme.

My thoughts are that the Australian Government have rushed into this deal to appease their GREEN partners to Govern as a Minority Government.  I am yet to understand how a tax levy based upon ‘carbon usage’, and its implied deterrent and influence to help reduce ‘carbon emission’ – can or  will work.  The debate is flawed and represents Policy and Legislative intent with motivating factors that go to the self-serving interests of the Government, and not in the best interests of the Australian people.

Back to Index

The Producers:

The CIA Factbook has many economic and energy resources records on all Nations around the World and is available to the public.  Click here to view or download this CIA Factbook data on-line. From that factbook the Producers list looks like this.

The Table at right provides “Production” data for the top 30 oil producers in the World as at 2011.   [Click on Table to enlarge in a new window.]

The OPEC member Nations are all included on this list i.e. Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Venezuela. These top 30 Nations produce some 93% of all the OIL Produced by the all the Nations listed on the CIA Factbook page. These OPEC Nations account for 31% of the Globes total daily oil production.  – [Click here to see source data. This 31% represents some 27.5 million barrels a day compared with the total daily production of 88.9 million barrels a day.

Extracts from the “About Us” section on the OPEC cartel website states the following:

Member Countries

| OPEC Website – About US | Date: 6th July 2012 | Link to Source. |

… The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was founded in Baghdad, Iraq, with the signing of an agreement in September 1960 by five countries namely Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. They were to become the Founder Members of the Organization.

These countries were later joined by Qatar (1961), Indonesia (1962), Libya (1962), the United Arab Emirates (1967), Algeria (1969), Nigeria (1971), Ecuador (1973), Gabon (1975) and Angola (2007).

From December 1992 until October 2007, Ecuador suspended its membership. Gabon terminated its membership in 1995. Indonesia suspended its membership effective January 2009.

Currently, the Organization has a total of 12 Member Countries.

Back to Index

The Consumers:

The flip-side of the Producers relates to the Consumer Nations and whether they are self-sufficient, natural exporters, or net importers.  Again the CIA Factbook provides the raw data – click here for the CIA data on-line website for Producers.

The condensed Table at right includes both “Consumers” and “Producers” with a legend of “Producers and their ranking as “Producers”, and Producers and their ranking as “Consumers. [Please click on Table to enlarge in a new window.]

The Highlighted Nation Names are Nations who are either a top 30 Producer or Consumer, but are not a top 30 on the other side.  The Yellow highlight represent Nations on both sides of the top 30.

Back to Index

Top Consumers and their Production Shortfalls!

The data in the Consumer and Production tables produced above give clear FACTS about which Nations are OIL dependent, and/or import their daily requirements. Staying within these top 30 Consumers and Producers – there are 21 Nations whose consumption is higher than their production.  The shortfall within these 21 Nations amounts to 48.5 million barrels per day.

To put that in context – these 21 Nations with a production shortfall are required to import 48.5 million barrels of oil every day to meet their consumption requirements.  That 48.5 million barrels has a refined value of some $4.85 billion or a yearly cost to their economy of $1.77 trillion. [Calculations are based on US$100 per barrel.   The “0” values on the Table mean the Nation concerned does not appear in the top 200 Oil Producers listing as per the CIA Factbook.] [Click on the image at right to enlarge in a new window.]

Of a total global consumption usage of 98 million barrels per day, the top 200 Nations named via the CIA Factbook account for 88 million barrels.  That 10 million barrels a day shortfall will be explained in future posts.  However, the 21 top Nations on this list with supply shortages do import more than 50% of the total daily usage (98 million barrels) for their own consumption.

This is clear evidence as to who the guilty parties are in any ‘carbon emission’ debate.   These 21 Nations represent 90% or so of the world population, and some 95% or so of the total global GDP.  [This research data will be provided in future blogs in this series.]

Back to Index

The CARBON emission footprint – CIA Data:

The top 30 Consumers listings above represent 90% of the total global daily usage – i.e. 88 million of a total usage of 98 million. This means just 21 Nations are responsible for 86% of all carbon emissions from oil and its by-product usage.

In terms of the ‘carbon’ footprint this 85 million barrels a day usage supply  represents, the following calculation is provided:

  1. 317kg*98,958,872 (barrels used every day) = 31.37 million tonnes of CO2 every day.
  2. Australia’s contribution to that is 960,800 (barrels used a day)*317kg = 304,575 tonnes of CO2.

[Please use links below to see how the conversion of barrels of oil to CO2 emission is calculated i.e. the calculation works out that one barrel of oil produces 317kg of CO2 emissions.]

Using this calculation – Australia emits .97% of the total world carbon emission emanating from its OIL consumption.

When the increase in CO2 emissions are measured by scientist’s, and as presented in a previous EYE-BALL blog – linked here – the CO2 emission number of 315 ppmv rises to 394 ppmv when presented in chart form. The chart below highlights this move.

Sourced from and Linked: CO2 Now.org

Taking the total global 31.37 million tonnes of CO2 emissions every day from (1) above – this equates to 11.5 trillion tonnes per year. This has been happening on an escalating scale since the Industrial Revolution 200+ years ago, and exponentially so since the 1970’s – yet the CO2 levels increase in the atmosphere has increased ever so marginally.

The CO2 Now.org chart is made to look aggressive, threatening, and supportive of a crisis level in the levels of CO2 atmospheric emissions. The facts are far different.

Here is why – if you were to put this scale of increase on a 100% pie chart made up of all the atmospheric gas components – the section indicating the CO2 increase would a minute fraction of the width of a thin line separating pie sections. See Table and chart result below to verify this.

Click on either of these two images (Table or Pie Chart) – to enlarge in a new window. The Table and Charts above have been extracted and compiled from data from the Wikipedia Research Page – “Atmosphere of Earth”.

The crux of this whole debate is the alarm at the increase in CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) Atmospheric content that has risen from 0.031545% or 315 parts per million (Volume) – to 0.039445% or 394 parts per million (Volume).  It is an increase of 25% in CO2 levels that represents an increase in CO2 content of 0.00079% in the total atmosphere. In isolation the 25% increase sounds dangerous – yet the fact is that in the size of an olympic swimming pool some 2,500,000 liters – this CO2 increase would represent 19.75 liters.

Calculation for volume of an Olympic size pools measure: 50 metres long, 25 metres wide, and a minimum of 2 metres deep. (25m x 50m x 2m = 2,500m3; 1L = 0.001m3 so 2,500 x 1000 = 2,500,000L)

The sharp end of this debate is focused on the concerns from the fossil fuel and its by-product contribution to this CO2 increase.  With the amount of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere on a daily basis from global OIL consumption – the natural instinct is to want to blame CO2 as the guilty party.   It’s logical – but the facts paint a completely different picture.

If Politicians truly understood the maths and the miniscule changes that are involved over the period since accurate records have been kept – i.e. 60 years maybe – I guarantee you the debate would not be so frenzied, panicked, and desperately eager to make mass changes.  Changes  that will impact upon everybody on the planet – both financially, and in the way we all live our lives.

Whatever steps are taken to reduce emissions via a ‘Carbon Tax’ or ’emission trading scheme’ – none of it will make one scrap of difference to any CO2 atmospheric emission in any medium term time frame. The fact is that developing Nations want their opportunity to grow. Why should they be penalised because industrialised Nations have created the carbon trend?

What is missing from the debate is the increase/decrease of other minute gas’s within the atmosphere.  Carbon is deemed the ‘bad-boy’ or so Scientists and Government’s would want us to believe.   This is a ‘con-job’, a ‘swindle’, or a ‘Ponzi’ type scheme if you like on a massive scale in terms of how many, and the who’s who of who has been sucked into sponsoring, and believing that Carbon is solely responsible for any perceived ‘Climate Change’ argument.

As posted in many of the earlier blogs on this subject made over the last 18 months – all linked below – Carbon is the essential ingredient of everything that exists on this planet.  More Carbon means more food – and pretty much more of everything.  The debate is idiotic in that context – and it rests mainly in academia land where Government funding is the only thing that provides the scientists with employment, and a lifestyle they would never have in the private sector. What and where is the research that indicates peak levels of atmospheric CO2 that create human and animal health issues? What about food production in a higher CO2 atmosphere – what are the yield growth ratios?

Without the ‘Carbon Tax’ and ‘Climate Change’ debate – $billions would have already been saved from the monies spent on research, reviews and more reviews on those reviews, and the infrastructure undertakings already in place and planned for.  A great number of people have been sucked in by this ‘con’, and those perpetrating the ‘con’ have gotten filthy rich – i.e. Al Gore for one who is visible.

The recant by renown scientist Mr Lovelock earlier this year, and as reported on this blog site, gives pause and reason to debate whether this whole urgency may just unfold itself and fade away when the ‘con’ is revealed and accepted.  Try telling that to the likes of Environment Minister Greg Combet and his Prime Minister – they for Political gain will not entertain any other debate.

Politicians have relied solely on scientist’s advice to sell this ‘Carbon Tax’ and ‘Climate Change’ to the electorate and to the World.  Their own research has been to read the Scientific research and their minds are closed to any other perspective.  The GREENs wanted this as a price if they were going to form a Minority Government – the Coalition said NO – and the ALP wanted Government at any price.

The then Leader of the ALP broke her promise to all Australian’s a week or so before the 2010 election when she looked down the camera lenses and stated – ‘no carbon tax under a Government I lead’ –  she rolled over and let Bob Brown stick it to her and Australia where she gets to enjoy all the thrills and frills, and the Australian people have to carry the baby.

Back to Index

The CARBON emission footprint – OECD Data:

Another part of this research endeavour has been to compare the OECD data on CO2 emissions with the data extracted from the CIA factbook and the calculations differences made from that data extraction.  Below is a OECD Table of CO2 emission data covering all ‘fuel combustion’ emissions, including – COAL, PEAT, OIL, and GAS.

When Coal, Gas, and Peat are added to Australia’s carbon footprint – the emissions goes from 0.97% of the Worlds emissions, to 1.4%.  The difficulty here is that the CIA data is date stamped 2011, and the OECD data is date stamped 2009. [Click on the Table below to enlarge in a new window.] Click here to see the source data at the OECD Website.

[Please click on the Table at right to enlarge in a new window.]

This information adds somewhat to the confusion and accuracy of any research project and their findings.  If one did not know better – it might be suggested it has been done this way deliberately to help with the confusion.   I’m sure that the raw data the scientist’s are working with comes from unpublished sources and all we can do as researchers and commentators is work with what we can find.

It ain’t a perfect system – but this whole ‘Climate Change’ movement given a shot on the arm in 2002 with AL Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ and his ladder to point to where CO2 is headed has been something to behold.  I was a supporter until I decided to get my own facts and prove to myself that what I had believed in and all based on the propaganda presented was in fact the right side of the debate.  If all Australians did this – including the Politicians this ‘Carbon Tax’ would have been proven tobe a great big hoax.

When Scientists are working with the same type of data with its variances – do you think they allocated and threshold factors for ‘margins of error’.   The Scientist’s who supported the climate change debate took what they needed and made the numbers work.  Those who were sceptics did the opposite. Governments came down on the supporters and they got the funding.  You can get any amount of Government funding to prove carbon’s impact on animal habitats and the like – but you can’t get a dime to disprove any of what the Governments have accepted.

The CIA data presented earlier is dated 2011 – whereas the data and research results presented from the OECD database is dated 2009 data.

The interesting point in this data comparison from Australia’s perspective is that using the CIA data – and at the 2011 dateline – the Australian oil usage CO2 emission footprint is measured at 304,575 tonnes per day – whereas the OECD data Australia’s total fossil fuel emissions calculated as follows: 395,000,000 annual tonnes of CO2/365days =  1,082,191 tonnes per day of which OIL represents 304,575 tonnes.

Again the Important Note: The OECD data includes Coal, Peat, Oil, and Gas emissions whereas the CIA data only pertains to OIL.  Like with like comparisons are still being researched and will be presented in future posts on this ‘Part Series’ expose as Gas, Coal and Peat are researched..

Back to Index


The battle lines have been drawn on the ‘Carbon Tax’ debate from a Political perspective. The Opposition have vowed to repeal the Tax – the Government has mandated to do everything it can whilst still in Government to make it impossible for the Opposition to scrap the Tax – either Legislatively, or via other means.

This gives the Opposition a bet each way – they can promise to repeal the Tax and when they get into Government – they can claim that the unwinding of the Labour minefield of Legislation just means the Australian electorate will have to live with the Tax.  Would that be an election promise broken?  ALl type os hypocrisy would then become the debate and it would be as it is now except for role reversals.

For this ALP Government to have stoop to such petty endeavours and announce its intentions to try and block any chance of a repeal of this ‘Carbon Tax’ Legislation is indicative of the ’cause and effect’ this Government is having on Australian’s and the Nation as a whole.

To put this another way – even blind Freddy can read the polls indicating a whitewash result for Labour at the next election.  That would mean most of the Front Bench will be out of a job.   They all know this and this spiteful and vengeful display by a minority Government proves its disdain and in anywhere but Government – ‘criminal’ intent to sabotage the next Government if it not be them.

The research information on OIL provided in this blog has to make you wonder right?  All the MP’s and Senators will be receiving an e-mail with a link to this post in an effort to draw further constructive debate and commentary between Leaders and MP’s alike.  Should you want to respond likewise with a link back to this page please feel free to do so.  Or – you might just want to post a comment below to express your feelings.

The next Part II in this series of blogs will be on the Coal and Gas Industry and their contributions to the emission’s debate.

Back to Index

Previous EYE-BALL Posts on the “Carbon” Debate:

  1. 10th Mar 2011 – EYE-BALL on The great big “OIL” ripoff …
  2. 19th Apr 2011 – EYE-BALL on – The DUMB down Leadership “POLL” debate …
  3. 20th Apr 2011 – EYE-BALL Carbon Tax – a simplistic analysis … if there could ever be one …
  4. 21st Apr 2011 – EYE-BALL on The “Carbon Tax” debate Part 2 – more research …
  5. 27th Apr 2011 – EYE-BALL on – The continued “DUMB DOWN – CARBON TAX” debate …
  6. 30th May 2011 – EYE-BALL on CARBON TAX – more comment on the why and how …
  7. 4th Jun 2011 – EYE-BALL on – Climate Change and the rush of – Me Too’s who have joined the campaign …
  8. 7th Jun 2011 – EYE-BALL on – CARBON TAX – Price of CARBON – a conundrum of conflicts …
  9. 11th Jun 2011 – EYE-BALL on – An Example of how Weak Resolve and Weak Governments can bring about disaster …
  10. 20th Jun 2011 – EYE-BALL Guru on – The ALP Government Report Card – Part 2
  11. 28th Jun 2011 – EYE_BALL on – A CO2 Presentation – A Climate Change contribution …
  12. 7th Jul 2011 – EYE-BALL on CLIMATE CHANGE … is the real question about Emissions – or the Planets sustainable population level?
  13. 10th July 2011 – EYE-BALL on – CARBON is not the ENEMY – … hoodwinked Leaders wearing DUNCE hats are …
  14. 14th Jul 2011 – EYE-BALL on – CARBON [CO2] is not the ENEMY – Part II
  15. 17th Jul 2011 – EYE-BALL on – Thoughts on the CARBON TAX Package –
  16. 20th Jul 2011 – EYE-BALL on – An Enlightened View on Carbon Emissions …
  17. 22nd Aug 2011 – EYE-BALL Guru on – Another reason the Australian Treasurer deserves his DUNCE-HAT!!!
  18. 26th Sep 2011 – EYE-BALL on – “Economists” – puppets following the Pied Piper …
  19. 27th Oct 2011 –  EYE-BALL on – Who Really OWN’s the Carbon Tax?
  20. 14th Dec 2011 – EYE-BALL on – The EGG on Duchess Julia’s Face … what will her strategy on the Carbon Tax be now ?
  21. 16th Mar 2012 – EYE-BALL – Climate Change 2012 – The Carbon Tax …
  22. 4th Apr 2012 – EYE-BALL – GILLARD – Australia’s worst Nightmare … worse than Jack Lang.
  23. 26th Apr 2012 – EYE-BALL – The Carbon Tax – may we hope the ‘SLIPPER AFFAIR’ will save us all …
  24. 3rd July 2012 – EYE-BALL on – “Carbon Tax” & “Climate Change” … A 21st Century Swindle …

Back to Index

Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Back to Index

The EYE-BALL Guru …

  1. July 8, 2012 at 10:02 am

    Australia’s total emission of 1,082,191 tonnes per day with a Carbon Price of $23 a tonne, means that the Carbon Tax has the potential to bring some $24 million a day in tax revenue, and $9 billion a year less offsets handed back to taxpayers and Business along the same lines of the way the GST works for business.

    That $9 billion a year tax collect equates to $412 for each of Australia’s 22 million population – or almost $8 a week.

    Of course these are all hypotheticals for the moment – and almost match some of the Government forecasts – the $9 billion additional revenue for the Governmnet represents a small percentage (2.9%) of Australia’s total tax evenue base of $310 billion for the 12 months to the end of May.

    The purpose of the Carbon Tax is to disincentivise dependence on fossil fuel – Australia’s Coal Industry is deemed a ‘bad-boy’ and the Carbon Tax works against the Coal industry … this is a conundrum yet to be fully exposed in economic reality, job losses, Australia’s dependence on Coal fired energy etc …

    The debate is heating up …

    EYE-BALL Opinion.

  2. July 8, 2012 at 10:16 am

    Australia uses 960,800 barrels a day – that means the daily cost of Australia’s usage (@$100/barrel) – $96 million / day. This is just for OIL, Coal and Gas numbers are not included. The Governemnt wants to collect $24 million a day in Carbon Tax levies –

    The numbers are beginning to work their way into the debate …

  3. July 9, 2012 at 10:32 pm

    The following comment was picked up off Larry Pickering’s Facebook page –

    “… considering 97% of all the CO2 is produced by mother nature.. that translates that mans contribution is in the order of 0.00114% into the atmosphere..

    Australia only produces approx. 1.4% of all the man made CO2 (1.4% of 0.00114).. which now represents 0.00001596% of the total C02 put into the atmosphere…

    If we Australians walked away from Australia, turned everything off and stopped manufacturing..

    China will produce the same amount of CO2 in approx. 72 hours, that all off Australia produces in 1 year..

    So by Australia cutting our CO2 emissions to ZERO, how much would the world temperature drop, by us no longer putting out our 0.00001596% of Carbon Dioxide….??? Mind you this is all of our emissions.. would you like to know what a 5% reduction means from this value..??” Author: James Petrovski

    These numbers point the way in that the debate has not reflected upon the insignifance of the Carbon imprint attributed to Humans … but again … where is the research on diminished Carbon atmospheric content … or the research on how much threshold there is for CO2 atmospheric content before it becomes harmful to animals and humans …

    The questions are numerous – yet the focus is on human CO2 contribution which according to the above numbers, are talking million billionth’s of a percentage …

    This has all been a fools errand and to think that our Leaders are a part of this con … what has been their motive …

  4. gratuit films
    July 20, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    I’ve been exploring for a little for any high quality articles or blog posts in this sort of space . Exploring in Yahoo I ultimately stumbled upon this site. Reading this info So i’m happy to convey that I have a very excellent uncanny feeling I found out exactly what I needed. I such a lot surely will make certain to don?t disregard this web site and provides it a glance regularly.

  5. Softlum
    September 29, 2012 at 2:44 am

    naturally like your website but you have to check the spelling on quite a few of your posts. Many of them are rife with spelling issues and I find it very troublesome to tell the truth however I will surely come back again.

  6. Britney
    October 5, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    Do you mind if I quote a few of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your site? My blog site is in the very same niche as yours and my visitors would really benefit from a lot of the information you present here. Please let me know if this ok with you.

  7. October 5, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    No Problem Britney … go for it.

  8. Georgia Jones
    October 14, 2012 at 8:04 am

    What a great article this is. Look forward to browsing this again again.

  9. Don
    October 14, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Great list. Very helpful for link seekers.. Thnx

  10. July 6, 2013 at 11:22 pm

    Hello fantastic website! Does running a blog such as this require a great deal of work?
    I’ve no understanding of coding however I was hoping to start my own blog in the near future. Anyways, should you have any ideas or tips for new blog owners please share. I know this is off topic nevertheless I simply had to ask. Appreciate it!

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: