Slashdot Mirror

"This paper presents a new formula for calculating when fossil fuel reserves are likely to be depleted and develops an econometrics model to demonstrate the relationship between fossil fuel reserves and some main variables. The new formula is modified from the Klass model and thus assumes a continuous compound rate and computes fossil fuel reserve depletion times for oil, coal and gas of approximately 35, 107 and 37 years, respectively. This means that coal reserves are available up to 2112, and will be the only fossil fuel remaining after 2042." http://www.peakoil.net/publications/when-will-fossil-fuel-reserves-be-diminished

    Current trends cannot be continued until 2100. There isn't enough fossil fuel. All the easily reachable oil is going to be burned and go into the atmosphere, no matter how successful the attempts to curb global warming. If we dramatically curb the use of fossil fuels, it will simply take a little longer to burn it all up. But it is all going into the atmosphere. There is no political force strong enough to tell all the people of the world they can't run their cars or heat their homes with fossil fuels any more. Since is entirely futile to stop all the easily extracted fossil fuel from being burned, there is no point in debating how to curb emissions. Our focus should be on what we can do to minimize the impact.

No seriously. The IEA and USGS (US Geological Survey) were both formed after the 1970's oil shock to provide us with reliable data about future oil supplies. They idea was to provide us with plenty of time to prepare ourselves for future oil shocks. And they did just that - delivering solid if boring data for 30 years.

The suddenly in 2000 everything changed. Sources hereto though uneconomic were included, assumptions like magic improvements in extraction efficiency were added. And the projections altered accordingly.

Seems Bush put about as much store in solid reliable oil data as he did in solid reliable Iraqi intelligence, or scientific advice on global warming for that matter. He was nothing if not consistent.

http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/weo2004/TheUppsalaCode.html.

If you are interested, there's also information about elephant-eating snakes...

Agreed, the cars will not go away. However, the USA imports 2/3 of the oil used to power its fleet of automobiles. Shortly after the US economy collapses (2009? 2008? 2012 at the latest), the oil exporters will no longer trade oil for (then worthless) dollars. At this time, the cars will still be there, but they won't be moving. This will mark the end of the American love affair with the automobile.

Enjoy your car while you can, and take a road trip soon. Pretty soon, there will be no more road trips in the USA.

Overwhelming evidence suggests the above statements are true. Overwhelming evidence also suggests that most people will deny it right up until it happens, and possibly for some time afterwards.

Suggested reading:
The Five Stages of Collapse
Jay Hanson's Die Off Resources
Scientific references about peak oil

World oil production is about 85 million barrels per day and T. Boone does Not think it can be increased.

Currently the USA consumes about 23 million barrels of oil per day.

I watched as a man and his wife who had worked hard and lived fruggley say their nest egg which was at they time they retired worth a little more than the value of a house erode away while they sat on low interest long term mortgage investments

Saudi Arabia currently produces in the vicinity of 10 million Barrels of oil per day

Where does it go from here? Maybe oil will be priced in Euros? Maybe foreign investment will decline as the dollar drops?

The Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas (ASPO) has huge energy holdings? Care to provide a source for that?

True. However, the USGS is notorious in peak oil circles for having continued to raise estimates of ultimate recoverables (IE, total production possible over human history) in the continental US, even after domestic production had reached and passed the predicted Hubbert Peak (IE, the halfway mark). The USGS 1972 predicted US-48-UR was a value between 2 and 10 times the value currently accepted. (Hubbard, by contrast, was about 10-30% low... from a range of 15 years pre-peak.) And, if you examine the weasel words in their footnotes, you'll see the USGS and similar agencies effectively admit to fixing their supply predictions to equal the value for predicted demand. We're at the absolute brink of Peak Oil. It would also provide a plausible secondary motivation for the Iranian nuclear program, and explain why they are so adamant about pursuing the atom despite having one of the world's largest oil reserves: they also think that Peak Oil is at hand.

If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world's oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056.

This, however, assumes that oil production can remain steady, and that those reseve estimates are accurate. The premise of the Hubbert peak is that production rates will begin dropping at increasing rates, due to increasing difficulty in extraction.

I don't have time to address the problems with each of your silver linings, but looking at a few Peak Oil sites and a quick search for "Energy Profit Ratio" should leave many people skeptical about them.

Which, in Realpolitik terms, might well justify the invasion of Iraq completely, aside from the stupidity how the invasion was executed (IE, without detailed post-invasion planning or comrehensive allied support). And, no, I am NOT a fan of Bush or the Iraq war... largely because of the aforementioned stupidity in execution.

'In 1855, an advertisement for Kier's Rock Oil advised consumers to "hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature's laboratory."'

Since when do you believe an advertisement?

"In 1874, the state geologist of Pennsylvania, the nation's leading oil-producing state, estimated that only enough U.S. oil remained to keep the nation's kerosene lamps burning for four years."

Even though this is not an advertisement it was in the 19th century. Technology and science progressed enormously since then.

"In May 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the world's total endowment of oil amounted to 60 billion barrels."

The USGS was proven to be wildy inaccurate even in their own country, I quote: "As recently as 1972, the USGS was releasing circulars that estimated US domestic oil production would not peak until well into the 21st century, and possibly not until the 22nd century. (See Theobald, Schweinfurth & Duncan, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 650)

This was despite the fact US production had already peaked in 1970, just as Hubbert had predicted. Richard Heinberg reminds us, "in 1973, Congress demanded an investigation of the USGS for its failure to foresee the 1970 US oil production peak.""

You say, that: "In 1950, geologists estimated the world's total oil endowment at around 600 billion barrels.
From 1970 through 1990, their estimates increased to between 1,500 and 2,000 billion barrels."

Source?

"In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment."

Actually, no. Please see this link, I quote: "The USGS 2000 divides the petroleum assessments into 'categories of probability': F95, F50 (i.e. median), F5, and Mean (i.e. arithmetic mean). "F" means fractile, as defined by the USGS", and then "TOTAL GCOE at F95 = (approx.) 2,000 Gb
TOTAL GCOE at F50 = (approx.) 2,700 Gb
TOTAL GCOE at F5 = (approx.) 4,900 Gb
TOTAL GCOE Mean = (approx.) 3,000 Gb".

This means, by their EXTREMELY flawed logic, that if they take the probabilities and get a mean value from them, then thats how many oil is out there, while anything below F50 probability is wishful thinking only, if not outright dreaming. I'd say that the quote: "and the estimates for the world Grown Conventional Oil Endowment will converge somewhere between 2000 and 2200 BBO (i.e. near the F95 estimate in the USGS 2000 report). The peak of world oil production is within sight." is very accurate in describing the real reserves.

"By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced. Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels. If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world's oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056."

The problem is not that oil is gone, but that consumption is bigger than production and that production cannot be increased by any significant numbers!

We currently need 83.5 million barrels per day. We are projected to need 120 million barrels per day by 2020. On the other hand, when|since we hit peak oil production (will) decrease by around 1 million barrels per day of production per year. We just cannot tap into the remaining oil reserves quickly enough and in such way that it would be worth the costs (in monetary and energy terms)!

Dick Cheney said, that "By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we w

Here's the site devoted to peakoil: http://www.peakoil.net/

A huge chunk of Saudi exports come from one gigantic field. This means our eggs are in this one basket. Here's an article that discusses that field, and the chance that the Saudis might have screwed it by over-extracting. If you do that, you limit how much you can get out later; you might lose the reserves. [I'm guessing you might damage it, but that some future technology might make it recoverable -- just at a higher cost]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/80C89E7E-1D E9-42BC-920B-91E5850FB067.htm

Important info:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
http://www.peakoil.net/

"truth is we're in for a moderate price climb, but it'll result in a pardigm shift."

With all due respect, I'd like to see you prove that statement.

As former CEO of Haliburton, and now for better or worse, Vice President, consider what Dick Cheney had to say on the matter in a 1999 speech:

"By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we will need on the order of anadditional 50 million barrels a day."

Only now, I believe the situation is worse.

Checkout this site for a viewpoint that differs. They are too apocolyptic for me, but it provides some good links and interesting data.

I believe that there will be some major changes, but not pandaemonium, and yes a change to alternate energy sources. I also believe that based on the data that is available--all indicators point to the fact that we have indeed reached peak oil (see the above site for more info).

There are a couple of wildcards, however. Do a search for Alan Chamberlin, Eden Energy or The Great Basin (in Nevada/Utah). Chamberlin is a geologist who believes to have found oil prospects in Nevada that exceed even Saudi reserves and has spent the last 20 years of his life (privately) on this quest after leaving Exxon, Gulf and Marathon. While major corporations such as Shell Oil spent nearly $200 million a half century ago sampling and measuring the area, then later abandoning it (along with others), advances in geological analysis might prove they left to soon. I recently stumbled across some of Dr. Chamerlin's literature and it was an interesting read. His company Eden Enegy, purchased 210,000 acres at the epicenter of the basin and begin drilling this fall. Just a few months ago, a company known as Wolverine announced a prospect on the eastern edge of the basin estimated at ~1 billion barrels that they have already drilled to success (they sat on this for nearly a year allegedly, as they purchased more property).

In any case, there is a lot of oil activity now going on in that area and my whole point is to illustrate that we may have a lot more petrolium than the current status quo agreement leads you to believe. I also believe that demand will exceed our expectations (led by China), along with environmental impact and that the switch to alternative energies might be more abrupt and driven by a greater necessity than a "gradual shift".

Some food for thought.

Why exactly would this be modded "Funny"? Peak Oil is terribly serious, and our lives will depend on how we get energy in the very near future. A bit of reading on the subject.

1. the end of the year
2. a couple of yearsfrom now
3. by the end of the decade
4. 20-30 years

Well put. The scary part to me is that the day of reckoning isn't when we start to run out of oil. Instead, it is the time when we start declining in our production of oil after reaching a peak. That's going to be the end of what future historians will one day look back and term the 'age of oil'. Sound crazy? Read here and here.

Peak oil is not a conspiracy. Peak Oil

The IEA has recently shifted its peak forecast date from 2035, to a vague 2015-2024. This is particularly significant, as the IEA's forecasts have traditionally been rather optimistic. There are a number of geologists that are suggesting we have hit global peak production now, or that we will in the very near future i.e. 2005-2007. If that is the case, we do not have enough time to replace our existing energy infrastructure. We also currently do not have a source of liquid fuel with the ERoEI of petroleum. Rather than being complacent in the hopes that future technologies will replace oil, we should be doing everything possible to reduce our consumption.

We will not be regressing to medieval civilisation, but life as we all know it will change irrevocably.

Get ready for some interesting times.

Don't be planning too far ahead.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://www.peakoil.net/
http://www.peakoil.org/
http://www.peakoil.com/
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/20 05/04/08/BUGA4C50P61.DTL/

Do a lot of reading, make up your own mind.

But long before that, there will start to be not enough to go around.

ref1
ref2

Kyoto will fail sooner than you may think due to Peak Oil. Nations will want to get as much energy as they can get and nobody will care if that energy is harmful to environment or not.

Do not forget that 20% of the world population uses up the 86% of the energy of the world. As people in China and India, the two most populous country in the world, want to live like us the price of energy will rise and Kyoto will be ignored.

Well, good news is that it shouldn't be around for much longer

Be sure to learn all thats needed to survive in style in the chaotic post oil world.

I wonder what will happen to all these huge airliners when peak oil hits (and stays above)$100 a barrel. Perhaps they can be used for student housing.

Iceland plans to become the first oil-free country by 2050.

Best of luck to them: lots of people out there are saying that we're going to reach peak oil (the point at which supply of oil can no longer meet demand) much sooner - in which case, Iceland and, well, every other country won't have any choice but to be almost entirely oil free by 2050.

If only every country was at least this forward thinking and we didn't all take energy for granted.

Here's a few references: 1 2 3 4 5 or just Google for peak oil.

We're running out of oil. Nobody can prove it yet, but a bunch of smart guys have come pretty close.

I'll no doubt get modded down to a (-1, Flamebait) for daring to suggest that the future may not be as rosy as we all wish, but have the relevant people taken peak oil into consideration when making such plans? It just seems a little ill thought out to be building new roads on such a scale if they aren't going to be of much use in another 15-20 years time.

See 1 2 3 4 5 or just Google for peak oil.

But with Peak Oil almost upon us, if not already, will Bush the oil man help turn us around to use other energy sources in time? Kinda hard to fund off-planet missions when an increasing portion of the world is embroiled in resource wars.

Especially with Peak Oil just around the corner.

It has nothing to do with "reducing dependence on foreign oil", and everything to do with "soon there won't be enough oil to go around anymore".

This is a natural consequence of rushing full-on towards Peak Oil.

this site.

Also, you may be interested in this: ASPO Newsletter 48, December 2004. If the ASPO is right, then we only have a couple months before reaching global peak for conventional oil, and only a little over 2 years for all non-conventional oil and gas fields globally. On a scale of months, this is almost 100% within most people's lifetime, and 2007 is very close to 100% of the population's lifetime. This event will not only effect your children when they are old, it will affect you near in the future. Renember the 1973 gas lines? What is coming will make 1973 look like a walk in the park on a Sunday afternoon. For more indepth, but dated), reading I highly reccomend visiting this site.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised /. hasn't had any discussion on the subject of Peak Oil. Geologists following the models of King Hubbert have projected that oil production will peak within about two years, never to increase again. With India and China becoming big oil consumers, we don't have a choice anymore but to think about the energy cost of everything we do. When oil company executives start telling you we're running out of oil, soon, and forever, why isn't anyone listening?

Automated cars with robot drivers will be the least of our worries. Finding something to eat might be higher up than it is now.

At the current rate of depletion, the global extraction rate for all petroleum is expected to arrive in 2005-2006. Any conservation of petroleum based fuels will only lessen the burden during the transition phase. For details on how the global oil crunch is unfolding, I suggest you do some research regarding peak oil. What you find will surprise you.

We are not running out of oil.

Are you sure ?

Whatever the origens of oil are, it seems that there is less of it becoming available. Check out the Association for the Study of Peak Oil.
In any case, oil will never "run out".
It will just become too expensive to scavenge what is left of it.

We should focus on stopping all the new coal fired power plants that are scheduled to come on line over the next 30 years from starting.

Clue: The people of the earth consumed 28 billion barrels of in one year while discovering only 8.5 billion barrels of oil to replace it.

Nobody's going to stop any coal fired plants from being opened.

Looking at it a different way, the human race is about two million years old give or take. In the early 1800s there were only about 800 million people alive. Now we are approaching seven billion. Industrialization powered by oil caused this massive population increase. When the oil is only one half used up we are going to see "downsizing" as in massive die-off.

There's loads of potential oil in them there tar sands but it's not going to help. It's too expensive (in energy terms) to get it out. It's only just positive and the maximum rate of extraction is low.

It's not going to be much to help this imminent problem:
This article is a good introduction.
A statement on Peak Oil.
Home of the association for the study of peak oil and gas (ex senior geologists and academics). The monthly newsletters are very good.
Some coverage from their recent conference.
A rather extreme America's take on it.
Peak Oil news portal with a good forum.

current situation:

we use oil for energy. Problem, oil is a finite resource, it WILL run out. Alternatives are needed. Okay, we agree so far.

What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energy..The Sun?

No viable alternatives exist yet. To quote verbatim:

Direct conversion of sunlight to electricity by solar cells is a promising technology, and already locally useful, but the amount of electricity which can be generated by that method is not great compared with demand. Because it is a low grade energy, with a low conversion efficiency (about 15%) capturing solar energy in quantity requires huge installations--many square miles. About 8 percent of the cells must be replaced each year. But the big problem is how to store significant amounts of electricity when the Sun is not available to produce it (Trainer, 1995), for example, at night. The problem remains unsolved. Because of this, solar energy cannot be used as a dependable base load. And, the immediate end product is electricity, a very limited replacement for oil. Also, adding in all the energy costs of the production and maintenance of PV (photovoltaic) installations, the net energy recovery is low (Trainer, 1995).

If you can think of a way to store this energy, fantastic, please share. Otherwise, back to the drawing board.

I do get annoyed by peakoil scaremongerers who ignore the fact that people continue making new finds around the world - even in bizarre places where we've never even thought of looking before, such as granite basement rock (????... ok, someone explain to me how that one works ;) And yet, look at Vietnam, and all of its granite fields like White Tiger...).

Here is what ExxonMobil has to say about the matter. Hardly scaremongering.

Add to the mix the fact that some oil companies have been overestimating their oil reserves, and you have a looming problem that is notscaremongering. Are we adapting (using our oil resources more wisely/conserving)? Not really.

The total fleet fuel economy peaked in 1987 at 26.2 mpg when light trucks made up a mere 28.1 percent of the market. By 2001 with light trucks making up 46.7 percent of the market total fleet fuel economy fell to 24.4 mpg.

The standards for all light trucks manufactured is set at 21.0 mpg for MY 2005, 21.6 mpg for MY 2006, and 22.2 mpg for MY 2007. This rule is effective May 5, 2003.

BTW, none of theses views are from "liberal environmentalist caremongerers" (whoever the heck they are.)

Cheers- raga

Note: it's a Word doc.

Mouse around the parent site for more info.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Ignore the book advertisements. Just read the front page.

http://peakoil.net/

And remember, this is NOT JUST ABOUT "GAS" FOR TRANSPORTATION.

This isn't about someone buying a Hummer or a Suburban instead of a Civic Hybrid or riding their bike.

Almost EVERYTHING modern industrial society needs is based on petroleum-based products and cheap energy. Plastics, fertilizers, pesticides, food processing, medicine, water purification...everything comes back to cheap energy and/or petroleum/oil-based products.

We've been led astray by believing the estimates of the OPEC nations with regards to their reserves. Well, the price they get, according to their agreement, is tied to how large their reserves are. There is zero incentive for any of the OPEC nations to provide an accurate estimate if it means lowering the number. In addition, many of the wells are pumping out large quantities of water that was pumped down into the oil fields to force out more oil. They are beginning to go "dry" so to speak.

Check out www.peakoil.net for more information.

Due to the fact that we are going to start on the downslope of Hubbert's peak very soon, transportation requiring petrolium based fuels will not be an option. I say that we are on the down slope due to this data stating that peak oil extraction was in 2003.

This is straight from ExxonMobil, not some wacko site. I think that they would know what they are talking about when they state that conventional oil extraction peaked in the year 2003. Also, Hydrogen is not the awnser to the earth's petrolium problems, most hydrogen produced today is extracted from petrolium based substances.

Given the growing energy consumption of the Third World, it is exceedingly unlikely that earth-based renewable energy will replace the need for oil. So we need a new source of power to permanently replace the old.

This is why I've been calling for a Space Power Satellite program instead of a Mars program. In 20 years, we might be able to get a 20 TW power satellite system up capable of replacing Middle East oil if we start now. This will require infrastructure items like a lunar mining and processing facility and a railgun to get processed silicon to an orbital factory capable of cheaply turning silicon into solar cells and other semiconductors.

It will be expensive, it will require pushing some technologies to the limit. It will not relieve us of the necessity of conserving energy in the meantime. The incandescent light bulb needs to become a thing of the past. We should already have started looking for low-hanging fruit type items, i.e. easy to do that would save substantial energy.

Bush should defund the Mars project in favor of reviving the Space Power Satellite.

It beats the hell out of the alternatives.

For every four barrels of oil we burn, we're only finding one new one.
Again, for each new barrel of oil discovered, we're burning four from the old known fields.

We _are_ running out of oil. And we're running out of it much faster than anybody cares to inform you.

How much did you spend on heat this winter? On AC last summer? On $2/gal gas for your Camry and SUV? It's time we had Open Source Energy, don't you think?

The captured solar energy of a 150 mile by 150 mile square area of Nevada desert would provide the United States with all its energy needs: consumer, residential, transportation, commercial and industrial; oil, gas, coal, electric, etc. combined. Yes. It's a fact.

And we don't need any new technology to do it either. A simple coal, gas or oil fired plant can be retrofitted with a different heat source.

There is no energy crisis. Never has been, never will be.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is neither created, nor destroyed.

First law of business: Make the consumer believe the product is scarce, then package and sell it in a format that can be controlled (ie. barrels of oil can be controlled, solar roofs can't).

Do you know how many of these we could have built for the over $100 billion spent on securing middle east oil? 10? 100? No, _1000_. Yup! Ouch.

Your friendly neighborhood,
JSMS III

There is no energy crisis. Never has been, never will be.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is neither created, nor destroyed.

First law of business: Make the consumer believe the product is scarce, then package and sell it in a format that can be controlled (ie. barrels of oil can be controlled, solar roofs can't).

The captured solar energy of a 150 mile by 150 mile square area of Nevada desert would provide the United States with all its energy needs: consumer, residential, transportation, commercial and industrial; oil, gas, coal, electric, etc. combined. Yes. It's a fact.

And we don't need any new technology to do it either. A simple coal, gas or oil fired plant can be retrofitted with a different heat source.

Do you know how many of these we could have built for the over $100 billion spent on securing middle east oil? 10? 100? No, _1000_. Yup! Ouch.

But we _are_ running out of oil. And we're running out of it much faster than anybody cares to inform you.

How much did you spend on heat this winter? On hot water? On AC last summer? On $2/gal gas for your Camry and SUV? It's time we had Open Source Energy, don't you think?

Your friendly neighborhood,
JSMS III

p.s.
For every four barrels of oil we burn, we're only finding one new one.
Again, for every four barrels of oil we burn, we find only one new one.
And again, for each new barrel of oil discovered, we're burning four from the old fields.

Who was the greatest exporter of oil to the United States last year (2003)?
Saudi Arabia? No. Venezuela? Nope. Iraq? uh-uh.
Who was it you ask? Canada! How 'bout that, eh?
Now ask yourself, why? How's that? What the heck is going on?

There is no energy crisis. Never has been, never will be.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is neither created, nor destroyed.

First law of business: Make the consumer believe the product is scarce, then package and sell it in a format that can be controlled (ie. barrels of oil can be controlled, solar roofs can't).

The captured solar energy of a 150 mile by 150 mile square area of Nevada desert would provide the United States with all its energy needs: consumer, residential, transportation, commercial and industrial; oil, gas, coal, electric, etc. combined. Yes. It's a fact.

And we don't need any new technology to do it either. A simple coal, gas or oil fired plant can be retrofitted with a different heat source.

Do you know how many of these we could have built for the over $100 billion spent on securing middle east oil? 10? 100? No, _1000_. Yup! Ouch.

But we _are_ running out of oil. And we're running out of it much faster than anybody cares to inform you.

How much did you spend on heat this winter? On hot water? On AC last summer? On $2/gal gas for your Camry and SUV? It's time we had Open Source Energy, don't you think?

Your friendly neighborhood,
JSMS III

p.s.
For every four barrels of oil we burn, we're only finding one.
For every four barrels of oil we burn we're finding only one.
For every barrel of oil we find, we burn foour.

Who was the greatest exporter of oil to the United States last year? Saudi Arabia? No. Venezuela? Nope. Iraq? uh-uh. Canada! How 'bout that, eh?
Now ask yourself, why? How's that?

p.p.s.
The Seawolf class nuclear submarine produces 50MWatts and doesn't need to be refueled for the life of the vessel. Hmm.

p.p.p.s.
There is no spoon.
There is no energy crisis. :-)

Let them try and hide the nuclear submarines. Let them explain them away. You know... the Navy can make a submarine that's self-contained and self-sustainable for a minimum 6 month mission at sea with a crew of hundreds, but the Air Force can't make a space ship that does the same for two weeks? Shame on them!

Or can they?

Oh, but for the Dynasoar!