A confident Kremlin is throwing its weight around.

[TigerPaws]

BC,

 Thank you for adding what I missed in my haste:)

[ronin308]

Actually by building a pipeline around Ukraine it gives Russia the ability to pressure Ukraine more than currently without effecting it's ties with Europe.

Currently if Russia cuts supplies to Ukraine they will siphon off the supplies to Europe so the effect is a negative view of both Russia and Ukraine from Europe.

If the European gas doesn't pass through Ukraine then Russia can cut the supply to Ukraine with only effecting Ukraine.

[TigerPaws]

[user=307]ronin308[/user] wrote:

Actually by building a pipeline around Ukraine it gives Russia the ability to pressure Ukraine more than currently without effecting it's ties with Europe.

Currently if Russia cuts supplies to Ukraine they will siphon off the supplies to Europe so the effect is a negative view of both Russia and Ukraine from Europe.

If the European gas doesn't pass through Ukraine then Russia can cut the supply to Ukraine with only effecting Ukraine.

 
 Which is what the original premise of this thread is about Russia's ability to throw it's collective weight around.
 

[BC]

Not much use owning a hammer if you can't use it to build something.

[jb]

There are few points I have not resolved within my own mind regarding several posts written here. I have had a few days to dwell and contemplate the meaning, and language used here, with the understanding that I'm not reading the thoughts of people "in the biz". This of, course, make a big difference.
If you think about it, Russia is now playing the oil game with the big leagues, however, there's no way a government, even with good intentions, can compete in the international oil business with the likes of ExxonMobile, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum and a few others. Compared to ExxonMobile, Gazprom is just a piker. I'm pretty certain Putin has been hiding in the wings and taking it all in with very big eyes, but he isn't there yet. It has been known for several decades that Russia's central and eastern Siberia has huge untapped deposits of oil and natural gas, it was also well known that several of the "Stans were resource rich as well. The unfortunate side of the page was Russia's lack of infrastructure, and lack of tooling, lack of tool making ability, knowledge of exploration technique, and lastly, large, large distances and crappy weather condition during much of the year that hampered exploitation and production of the resources.
Now, let's have a brief look at where we are, and how we got there, Lysander made the statement that it's not the Arab's fault oil prices are so high, they are merely selling something the West wants to buy. I think we can reasonably say the same thing about Russia. Russia is under no obligation to sell its resources at bargain basement prices to Ukraine, or anybody else for that matter.

But I get ahead of myself.

If you think back on this subject, increases in world oil prices lately have not been in line with consumption increases, this oil shortage is not, IMHO, scarcity driven. Like the prior price crisis', mostly it is either politically driven, or just plain greed. Someone once told me war is nothing more than armed robbery, writ large, that's how I view this.

I offer a few things for you to recollect and reflect upon. During Gulf War I, Russian oil and gas was not a factor on world oil prices; in fact, Russia was still in the throes of Soviet/Communism leadership. Its collapse was imminent, and almost immediately caused a terrible currency crash thus rendering the Russian market place a shambles. At about the same time, Iraq had invaded Kuwait and the ensuing debacle served to effectively take the oil production of both countries off-line, production-wise. The problem with Kuwaiti oil fields was further exacerbated when the retreating Iraqi Republican Guard set alight hundreds of oil wells as they sought to cover their ass on the way out of town.

Meanwhile, Iranian fields were as productive as ever, Saudi oil flow was run up to max, Nigeria was as hit or miss as ever, Venezuela wasn't either up or down in production quotas, IOW's there was no way to cover the shortfall of mid-east production with Kuwait and Iraq off-line if you look for a scarcity in the market place. The U.S.A., Europe, Japan, India, China remained as oil hungry as ever, and yet, strangely, while there was a momentary spike, the world oil price stayed relatively stable throughout the war, despite two major producers, (Iraq and Kuwait) being MIA. It made good political sense for the Arab Street to maintain a stable oil market while letting the US led coalition kick Saddam out of Kuwait. I'm guessing the Royal House of Saudi figured they were next in line for hostile takeover.

So there is a perfect example of market manipulation by the Arab oil producers.

Now,,, let's fast forward to the next decade, through a decade of relatively stable oil markets were gasoline at the pump hovered around $2.00 per gal in the US and Europe has a steady supply of mid-East oil again. Meanwhile Saddam has a chance to cover his tracks with the "Oil For Food" program, we since found out it was really a "Oil For Guns Bullet, and Palaces" program, and then 9/11 occurs. The U.S.A. has over 3,000 citizens murdered in a single day, eclipsing even that day which lives in infamy, December  7^th, 1941. The US declares war on Terrorism, and I think quite rightly so. However, other than a few platitudes of expressed sympathy, the free world isn't really behind America when push came to shove this time. It was America that got the bloody nose for a change and the European anti-American sentiments said; "*giggle*, *tee-hee*, serves 'em right, that'll take those aholes down a notch or two". Further it was also not in the best interests economic of Germany, France,,, and Russia, who stood to loose billions if Saddam was deposed, so they couldn't go against Iraq. No new anti-terror coalition was put together in the same way as Gulf War I. There were also huge recriminations over WMDs, while at the same time everybody with an IQ higher than algae knew he had them. Hell, he'd already used them against his own people~! However the UN provided enough time and wiggle room for him to ship the weapons to Syria, or some other such like-minded autocratic nation in the Middle East, and nothing has so far been found.

I'm personally glad to see some competition on the world market… Go Russia~!

[Bruno]

[user=307]ronin308[/user] wrote:

And you claim the US isn't doing anything and you want to ratify a treaty that is more political than actual scientific good?  I rarely side with our government on anything but in this case I agree.

Of course, US go in the go way... the best example is about the fusion project... localy, USA have stop the project... but international they collaborate...

But infortunaly, the "green" spirit seem to be limited in USA... not at the gouverment level but at the people level...

We have know similar situation in europe a few year ago... the only solution was to punish people who make a lot of polution and reward these who are "green"...

But like in US, local gouverment have problem for impose "green" evolution... In some way, it is lucky that European gouvrment move in these way...

For people who don't understand, you need to see a european country like a american state and the european communauty like USA... USa try to move in the green way but some state don't agree on the method...

Time is needed, very long time... it seem that the petrol reserve are enough long for several decade... but one day, we will need to use new energy...

The main argument from Tiger is that he will not see these new energy... some already exist ( in limited mean ), some will be ready in 30 year... why not make the research now... in 30 year, it will be to late... the main problem is politic only... since gouverment change after only a few year... why not think at longer term...

Yes, kyoto is not a wonder... specialy that the accord was changed after the test periode... but you need to see it like a first step... it is not possible change people in 10 year... several generation will be needed... but if we don't begin now, it will be too late...

 

[TigerPaws]

Bruno,
 
We have know similar situation in europe a few year ago... the only solution was to punish people who make a lot of polution and reward these who are "green"...

 As usual you are out of your Euro Nut Case Mind, maybe in your socialist world is it the responsibility of government to punish people who chose not to think a certain way but in America our government is subservient to the people. We the People of the United States of America is the tenure of our form of government not your form of the government is what is best for the people.
 
But like in US, local gouverment have problem for impose "green" evolution... In some way, it is lucky that European gouvrment move in these way...
 
 Bruno in America if the government tries to impose things like you want We the People of the United States of America will change the government to do and act as We the People of the United States of America want.
 
For people who don't understand, you need to see a european country like a american state and the european communauty like USA... USa try to move in the green way but some state don't agree on the method...

 Are you serious Bruno? You must be on some kind of mind alternating drugs, the differences between Europe and America are as far as night and day, America has very little in common with most of Europe.
 
Time is needed, very long time... it seem that the petrol reserve are enough long for several decade... but one day, we will need to use new energy...
 
Estimates of the known world oil reserves range from 250 to 300 years so we have a little time to figure this out.
 
Yes, kyoto is not a wonder.
 
Kyoto is a disaster which will accomplish nothing, get a grip on reality Bruno, take you head out of your socialist ....

[Lysander]

Wow, jb. Those Arabs must get under your skin since every other post of  yours is about how poor helpless white men are oppressed by mean desert  brown boys and their oil. Meanwhile, your anger towards some Europeans,  who unlike you, were smart enough to avoid getting entangled in Iraq,  is only slightly less.

Its not their fault there were no WMDs in Iraq, no ties to Al Qaida and  that its no "cakewalk" or that the big winner will be Iran.

The French knew better than to get themselves involved in that. That's  probably why you hate them so much....I guess kind of like the same  reason blacks and Arabs hate "whitey"

[ronin308]

Bruno, I quoted primarily government users since most Europeans claim our government isn't doing enough to limit pollution and use green energy sources.

They point to our refusal to accept the worthless and flawed Kyoto protocol as the fact we are not interested in reducing pollution.  Of course one does not have to support things like Kyoto to reduce the pollution within their own borders. 

US and European corporations have been moving their manufacturing facilities overseas for years to take advantage of the lax environmental regulations in those countries.  So while Europe will breathe cleaner, the items Europe uses are still polluting the earth.  Once again both Europe and the US are exploiting developing countries to the detriment of the locals. 

As to companies going green, I posted that the second largest chip company in the US is 100% green power as well as many other US companies making a large percent of the power they purchase green as well.

Contrary to what Europeans think, we aren't ignoring the world.   China is poised to embark on a building spree that will just about invalidate any gains from Kyoto with huge inefficient coal plants.  The US is at least doing research into efficient coal plants.  China is looking to pass the US in CO2 emmisions in the next few years. 

It's well known that one thing driving the "green" power initiatives in Europe is government subsidies.  We are doing similiar things over here with tax breaks,  at both federal and state levels with some states doing more than others.  Just like the fact that Germany has more incentives for business to use solar than say France.

Tigerpaws, you might be suprised much "socialism" is already tolerated in the US.  After all, the Fed's raising of the interest rate is no different than the idea of placing a tax on gasoline to reduce it's consumption.  The idea of paying a farmer not to grow his crops to ensure a high market place is also similiar.  There are hundreds of subsidies and tax breaks that move the people and the marketplace towards what the government thinks is right for us.

The big difference is that we tell the government what we feel is best for us in the form of elections.  Unfortunately this process has been corrupted by the use of lobbiests.  However something like putting a tax on gas wouldn't be tolerated no matter how much money is lobbied for it.  Which is why an income tax reduction with a hidden rider about a gas tax would be the best bet.

Going back to Russia, it is to the benefit of all nations to strive for energy independance.  I think that as was stated earlier Russia is using it's monopoly to attempt to exert influence it's neighboring countries who it feels it has the right to rule.  However I do feel the media is blowing things out of proportion compared to how things are.  After all it's good news.

[TigerPaws]

[user=307]ronin308[/user] wrote:

Tigerpaws, you might be suprised much "socialism" is already tolerated in the US.  After all, the Fed's raising of the interest rate is no different than the idea of placing a tax on gasoline to reduce it's consumption.  The idea of paying a farmer not to grow his crops to ensure a high market place is also similiar.  There are hundreds of subsidies and tax breaks that move the people and the marketplace towards what the government thinks is right for us.

No question rar too much of what you describe is going on and has gone on for far too long at least there are moes afoot to reduce some of crap you speak of, unlike in Europe where it is expected.

The big difference is that we tell the government what we feel is best for us in the form of elections.  Unfortunately this process has been corrupted by the use of lobbiests.  However something like putting a tax on gas wouldn't be tolerated no matter how much money is lobbied for it.  Which is why an income tax reduction with a hidden rider about a gas tax would be the best bet.

Hidden taxes and income tax increases are more difficult to pass now and hopefully in the future will be even more difficult, then again no Socialist ever met a tax they did not like.

Going back to Russia, it is to the benefit of all nations to strive for energy independance.  I think that as was stated earlier Russia is using it's monopoly to attempt to exert influence it's neighboring countries who it feels it has the right to rule.  However I do feel the media is blowing things out of proportion compared to how things are.  After all it's good news.

 I disagree Russia is trying to exert more and more of her preceived power and money, their media is totally state controlled it is almost like the old Sovied days in many respects.

 

[ronin308]

Moves afoot?  Like the 2002 Farm Bill that hands out 73 Billion dollars of subisidies?  Or the tax credits that have been extended for hybrid vehicles with the president's enthusiastic approval?  Or the ability to deduct the additional costs of organic food as a medical expense?  Or a bill that will provide tax credits to "green" buildings and communities passed in 2004?

Or the clean coal act of 2003 providing credits and subsidizing the development of "clean" coal fired power plants.

This type of "socialism" isn't going to ever go away, it's "expected" here in the US as much as it is in "socialist" Europe. 

You also misread me, I didn't say a tax increase but a tax decrease.  I do agree that the chance of something like I proposed passing is slim to none, but the income tax decrease would make it more palatable for most citizens.

[TigerPaws]

 I think what we have here is a minor misunderstanding, I agree that most subsidies (maybe all) should be done away with and any move to lower taxes is a good move.

[Shadow]

[user=307]ronin308[/user] wrote:

Contrary to what Europeans think, we aren't ignoring the world.   China is poised to embark on a building spree that will just about invalidate any gains from Kyoto with huge inefficient coal plants.  The US is at least doing research into efficient coal plants.  China is looking to pass the US in CO2 emmisions in the next few years. 

China is investing hugely in clean technolgy, using LPG, CNG and LCNG which are among the cleanest commercial possible fuels around. The technology used is compatible with H2 power shoud it become commercially available. As such they are very much aware of their resposibility.

Russian has huge gas reserves, and could do the same. And I am sure they will do this in a short time. The problems of transport can be solved by solutions already marketeable, some of them American inventions.

Both solar and wind power are not yet commercially interesting. Even subsidized the investment in solar power has a economic return on investment of 15 years, and a technical life span of 10. Wind power is more or less equal. Without the 'need' to be green or the huge amount from the EC to susidize they would not be build at all.

 

[Bruno]

Also, the cost of technology and of environmental permitting is cheaper for natural gas-fired plants.
For instance, the construction cost of a conventional coal-fired plant is about $1,000 for every kilowatt-hour of electricity it produces.
Cost of a wind power plant is $900 per kilowatt-hour, nuclear is $1,700 per kilowatt-hour while solar thermal is $2,400 per kilowatt-hour.
In contrast, the cost is much lower at $400 per kilowatt-hour for a natural gas-fired plant, according to the Energy Information Administration.

[Shadow]

Conventional and nuclear power plants receive massive amounts of direct and indirect governmental subsidies. If a comparison is made on real production costs, wind energy is competitive in many cases. If the full costs (environmental, health, etc.) are taken into account, wind energy is competitive in most cases. Furthermore, wind energy costs are continuously decreasing due to technology development and scale enlargement.

[/quote]Unfortunately NOBODY can calculate the environmental and health costs compared to those of other energy. And the full environmental and health effects of the huge wind towers is not yet known, they are in working order for too limited time.

[ronin308]

Bruno your link looks like it was from something in 1999 which doesn't reflect the large increase in Natural Gas prices.  As natural gas prices continue to increase in the global market coal has become more attactive again.

Shadow China is in huge needs for power and they will do so however they can, this is from an article dated 12/2004:

China is the dominant player. The country is on track to add 562 coal-fired plants - nearly half the world total of plants expected to come online in the next eight years. India could add 213such plants; the US, 72.

And once again in 6/2005 they mention China,India and the US as the big three of coal plants as well as in July 2005 where the same statement was almost repeated.

China's membership in Kyoto is really symbolic since it is considered a developing nation which means that it is exempt from the pollution controls contained in the treaty it signed. 

What was probably more important than Kyoto but missed by most of the Europeans is the one environmental protocol the US did get involved with which involved asian-pacific nations including China, India and the US.  Rather than trying to impose a hard limit it creates a roadmap of creating and developing systems to limit pollution.  This is consistant with the US policy under Bush that using hard numbers like Kyoto does will create a negative impact in the world beyond just the reduction of something that still isn't proven to cause global warming.

 

[Bruno]

[user=307]ronin308[/user] wrote:

Bruno your link looks like it was from something in 1999 which doesn't reflect the large increase in Natural Gas prices. 

Have you control the article  ... it is write in bold... 27 March 2004... if i provide the link, it is for allow you to control before make some assumption...

This is consistant with the US policy under Bush that using hard numbers like Kyoto does will create a negative impact in the world beyond just the reduction of something that still isn't proven to cause global warming.

 They are not hard numbers but goal to reach with a delay... we already know that some country will not reach it... Several American industry have not the wish to work in ecologic way since it rise the expense and diminish the profit... and since industry have a big power on US gouverment...

About something  that still isn't proven to cause global warning :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Atmospheric scientists know that adding carbon dioxide (CO₂) or methane (CH₄) to an atmosphere, with no other changes, will tend to make a planet's surface warmer. Indeed, greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or CH₄ to the Earth's atmosphere will result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth, on average. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and CH₄ will be.

 

[ronin308]

Sorry Bruno but the link didn't work so I had to assume the date based on the URL. 

Bruno, anything with a definable limit is a hard number.  The Kyoto protocol is hard numbers in terms of a percentage. A delay means nothing in world wide economics and the effects it will have in the 3rd world.  So if for example the US signed this protocol, all of the manufacturing jobs would move to Mexico increasing Mexican pollution beyond the bad levels it has today and causing a large loss of jobs in the US.  So the net effect in terms of CO2 is no change but at a large cost to jobs.

The same thing has been happening in Europe as their governments began tightening the environmental requirements, factories move to countries that don't have those requirements.  So by ratifying the Kyoto protocol you are saying that lives in 3rd world countries have less value than yours does.  This is a continuation of the European attitude that resulted in the ruining of cultures throughout the less civilized world. 

As to the US being focused on only on profit why is the US the leader in developing techologies to allow for reduction  in coal burning emissions this will lead to more expensive coal plants?  We are also looking to sell/subsidize this "green" technology to the Chinese who are going to eclipse the US pollution output by 2025 if they continue their current products. 

I should have been more clear.  The myth isn't that CO2 or Methane causes global warming, that's a scientific fact.  The myth is that their is an increase in CO2 caused by global polluters and that it will lead to global warming.  If this is the case how come in the last 18 years satellite data has shown a worldwide decrease in temperature not an increase.  This confirms what atmospheric and climate researchers were saying in the 70s which was that we were going to enter a new ice age.

The global rise in surface temperatures can be explained in that most of the sample points  used to "confirm" global warming are located in urban areas where the increase in temperature can be explained by the increased development.  (You do know why it's warmer in a city vs the country and it has nothing to do with CO2).

The biggest problem we have now is that it is in the interests of both the environmental groups and scientists to continue to perpetuate the misunderstanding of global warming.  As we know from the changes made in our news casts, fear sells.  By making their claims, scientists get research grants based on fear and environmental groups get tons of donations to "fight" the evil companies.

The IPCC report issued on global warming in 1996 is perfect case in this.  The working group of 2500 scientists found that there was no proof that the increase in CO2 emissions was related to the earth's temperature.  Once they issued their findings they were edited by persons with no scientific background to produce the exact opposite answer which is the commonly accepted theory.  Those types of manipulations are commonplace when science is merged with politics as the Kyoto accord does.

In fact the biggest opponent in the US senate to Kyoto did not argue against signing it based on economic impacts but that the science was bad and wrong.  So tell me again how we're only focused on profit?

 

 

 

 

[Shadow]

[user=307]ronin308[/user] wrote:

Bruno your link looks like it was from something in 1999 which doesn't reflect the large increase in Natural Gas prices.  As natural gas prices continue to increase in the global market coal has become more attactive again.

Shadow China is in huge needs for power and they will do so however they can, this is from an article dated 12/2004:

China is the dominant player. The country is on track to add 562 coal-fired plants - nearly half the world total of plants expected to come online in the next eight years. India could add 213such plants; the US, 72.

And once again in 6/2005 they mention China,India and the US as the big three of coal plants as well as in July 2005 where the same statement was almost repeated.

China's membership in Kyoto is really symbolic since it is considered a developing nation which means that it is exempt from the pollution controls contained in the treaty it signed. 

What was probably more important than Kyoto but missed by most of the Europeans is the one environmental protocol the US did get involved with which involved asian-pacific nations including China, India and the US.  Rather than trying to impose a hard limit it creates a roadmap of creating and developing systems to limit pollution.  This is consistant with the US policy under Bush that using hard numbers like Kyoto does will create a negative impact in the world beyond just the reduction of something that still isn't proven to cause global warming.

 

The company I work for supplies small parts for gas filling stations. During 2004 we supplied for 12 stations. During 2005 we supplied for 150 stations. Plans for 2006 are to build 400 stations, and a second production facility will be built. There are more companies interested in the same solutions. We are developing three major projects involved with gas. As such my information on China is more or less first hand.

[Bruno]

[user=307]ronin308[/user] wrote:

Sorry Bruno but the link didn't work so I had to assume the date based on the URL. 

Maybe i need to give some explanation...

Previously, when i have post long URL, some members of the forum have know problem when they have browse the topic... they need scrool horizontaly and verticaly the forum to read it 

So, when i have a long link, i copy it to a code box... you need copy and paste the first line in your brower... copy the second line and past it after the first part in the brower and hit "enter"...

Second problem, the board software don't allow complex URL like these to be posted in URL mode, the fact that the URL have two time "http://" inside make problem.

[Bruno]

[user=307]ronin308[/user] wrote:

If this is the case how come in the last 18 years satellite data has shown a worldwide decrease in temperature not an increase.

The global rise in surface temperatures can be explained in that most of the sample points  used to "confirm" global warming are located in urban areas where the increase in temperature can be explained by the increased development.  (You do know why it's warmer in a city vs the country and it has nothing to do with CO2).

So if for example the US signed this protocol, all of the manufacturing jobs would move to Mexico increasing Mexican pollution beyond the bad levels it has today and causing a large loss of jobs in the US.  So the net effect in terms of CO2 is no change but at a large cost to jobs.

Wrong example... Mexico have sign and agree...

 

[/b]
Note : Signing is optional, indicating intention to ratify. Ratification is the key step for a country to formally accept an international treaty.

157 country have sign and ratified the protocol

5 country have sign and not yet ratify ( Croatia, Kazakstan, Monaco, Zambia, Serbia and Montenegro )

2 country have sign but refuse to ratify it : USA, Australia

35 country have not yet signed

157 country against 42... do you think that you have right and the majority of the world is wrong...

The two major countries currently opposed to the treaty are the USA and Australia. Some public policy experts who are skeptical of global warming see Kyoto as a scheme to either retard the growth of the world's industrial democracies or to transfer wealth to the third world in what they claim is a global socialism initiative.

But several American try to push the state gouverment to accept Kyoto by following local initiative :

As of November 15, 2004, nine Northeastern US states are involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) RGGI, which is a state level emissions capping and trading program. It is believed that the state-level program will indirectly apply pressure on the federal government by demonstrating that reductions can be achieved.

- Participating states: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware.
- Observer states and regions: Pennsylvania, Maryland, District of Columbia, Eastern Canadian Provinces.

As of December 2, 2005, 192 US cities representing more than 40 million Americans support Kyoto after Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle started a nationwide effort to get cities to agree to the protocol.

Large participating cities: Seattle, New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Denver, New Orleans, Minneapolis, Austin, Portland, Providence, Tacoma, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Little Rock, West Palm Beach, Annapolis

So, i have hope  since a big part of American seem concerned by these problem  ... maybe with time, US gouverment will change of mind... but this is more a political problem, and not a ecological one :noidea: .



 

[BC]

This is really getting off topic but I wonder how much temperature changed before, during and after the last ice age..

The earth has natural climate cycles.  I'm sure humans add factors to these cycles but there is no one that can quantify the effect humans have on the planet.

I'm sure that pollution and energy waste is not good for anyone so let's work from there instead of first trying to find an excuse not to pollute.

[TigerPaws]

[size="4"][color="blue"]This topic has wandered much too far off topic, if we can not bring it back to al least something close to the original header, I ask that Dan close the thread,[/color]
[/size]

[Jack]

hey! If their's not a graph or chart on anything, Bruno will make one.

[Bruno]

This is really getting off topic but I wonder how much temperature changed before, during and after the last ice age..

For Jack, if you wish, i have a graph from 400.000 year... with all ice age...

Yes, we are off topic... but not so much... first, the cat/mouse game from Ukraine and russia about energy... leading to spare of energy... leading to kyoto...

Simply a usual discussion : RWD, D for discussion