The Good Oil
Grandpa Aerotart
Holly Crap!!...I was in Sydney too in those days...I don't remember paying 14 cents a liter...OK everything I said in my previous post is rubbish....TIME TO PANIC
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FIRST WOOMERA:
Aye, very passable, that, very passable bit of risotto.
SECOND WOOMERA:
Nothing like a good glass of Château de Chasselas, eh, Josiah?
THIRD WOOMERA:
You're right there, Obadiah.
FOURTH WOOMERA:
Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Château de Chasselas, eh?
FIRST WOOMERA:
In them days we was glad to have the price of a cup o' tea.
SECOND WOOMERA:
A cup o' cold tea.
FOURTH WOOMERA:
Without milk or sugar.
THIRD WOOMERA:
Or tea.
FIRST WOOMERA:
In a cracked cup, an' all.
FOURTH WOOMERA:
Oh, we never had a cup. We used to have to drink out of a rolled up newspaper.
SECOND WOOMERA:
The best we could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth.
THIRD WOOMERA:
But you know, we were happy in those days, though we were poor.
FIRST WOOMERA:
Because we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, "Money doesn't buy you happiness, son".
FOURTH WOOMERA:
Aye, 'e was right.
FIRST WOOMERA:
Aye, 'e was.
FOURTH WOOMERA:
I was happier then and I had nothin'. We used to live in this tiny old house with great big holes in the roof.
SECOND WOOMERA:
House! You were lucky to live in a house! We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, 'alf the floor was missing, and we were all 'uddled together in one corner for fear of falling.
THIRD WOOMERA:
Eh, you were lucky to have a room! We used to have to live in t' corridor!
FIRST WOOMERA:
Oh, we used to dream of livin' in a corridor! Would ha' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House? Huh.
FOURTH WOOMERA:
Well, when I say 'house' it was only a hole in the ground covered by a sheet of tarpaulin, but it was a house to us.
SECOND WOOMERA:
We were evicted from our 'ole in the ground; we 'ad to go and live in a lake.
THIRD WOOMERA:
You were lucky to have a lake! There were a hundred and fifty of us living in t' shoebox in t' middle o' road.
FIRST WOOMERA:
Cardboard box?
THIRD WOOMERA:
Aye.
FIRST WOOMERA:
You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t' mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi' his belt.
SECOND WOOMERA:
Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of 'ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!
THIRD WOOMERA:
Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife.
FOURTH WOOMERA:
Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.
FIRST WOOMERA:
And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.
ALL:
They won't!
with apologies to the Monty Python Crew
Aye, very passable, that, very passable bit of risotto.
SECOND WOOMERA:
Nothing like a good glass of Château de Chasselas, eh, Josiah?
THIRD WOOMERA:
You're right there, Obadiah.
FOURTH WOOMERA:
Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Château de Chasselas, eh?
FIRST WOOMERA:
In them days we was glad to have the price of a cup o' tea.
SECOND WOOMERA:
A cup o' cold tea.
FOURTH WOOMERA:
Without milk or sugar.
THIRD WOOMERA:
Or tea.
FIRST WOOMERA:
In a cracked cup, an' all.
FOURTH WOOMERA:
Oh, we never had a cup. We used to have to drink out of a rolled up newspaper.
SECOND WOOMERA:
The best we could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth.
THIRD WOOMERA:
But you know, we were happy in those days, though we were poor.
FIRST WOOMERA:
Because we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, "Money doesn't buy you happiness, son".
FOURTH WOOMERA:
Aye, 'e was right.
FIRST WOOMERA:
Aye, 'e was.
FOURTH WOOMERA:
I was happier then and I had nothin'. We used to live in this tiny old house with great big holes in the roof.
SECOND WOOMERA:
House! You were lucky to live in a house! We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, 'alf the floor was missing, and we were all 'uddled together in one corner for fear of falling.
THIRD WOOMERA:
Eh, you were lucky to have a room! We used to have to live in t' corridor!
FIRST WOOMERA:
Oh, we used to dream of livin' in a corridor! Would ha' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House? Huh.
FOURTH WOOMERA:
Well, when I say 'house' it was only a hole in the ground covered by a sheet of tarpaulin, but it was a house to us.
SECOND WOOMERA:
We were evicted from our 'ole in the ground; we 'ad to go and live in a lake.
THIRD WOOMERA:
You were lucky to have a lake! There were a hundred and fifty of us living in t' shoebox in t' middle o' road.
FIRST WOOMERA:
Cardboard box?
THIRD WOOMERA:
Aye.
FIRST WOOMERA:
You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t' mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi' his belt.
SECOND WOOMERA:
Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of 'ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!
THIRD WOOMERA:
Well, of course, we had it tough. We used to 'ave to get up out of shoebox at twelve o'clock at night and lick road clean wit' tongue. We had two bits of cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at mill for sixpence every four years, and when we got home our Dad would slice us in two wit' bread knife.
FOURTH WOOMERA:
Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.
FIRST WOOMERA:
And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.
ALL:
They won't!
with apologies to the Monty Python Crew
Grandpa Aerotart
I was telling my daughter about those days just recently...bigbastard engines and no-one had ever heard the expression 'fuel economy'.
I first had a motor bike too in early 77 then as soon as I was old enough for a car licence got one...bigbastard Valiant Charger with Hemi 265...truly bullet proof engine and gearbox but the body was just crap...fecking thing just rusted away in front of you...especially behind the rear wheel arches and around the door hinges...remember those huge doors
My one was white like the one herehttp://members.optusnet.com.au/iroc-z/oz/oz1.html
But way cool as you rounded a corner and some long haired 70s beauty with 70s style boob tube and Levis would give you the peace sign and mouth the words "Hey Charger!"...ok more often than not it was some pimply faced 14 yr old brat
You would then plant it and 'smoke the bags' with nary a care in the world for the price of tyres or petrol.
My Brother hand a Sandman with about 3 different horns and whistles and teardrop tinted windows in rear...blue printed hugemongous engine...
Ya right....we are getting old
And ya tell youngans these days and they just don't believe you
I first had a motor bike too in early 77 then as soon as I was old enough for a car licence got one...bigbastard Valiant Charger with Hemi 265...truly bullet proof engine and gearbox but the body was just crap...fecking thing just rusted away in front of you...especially behind the rear wheel arches and around the door hinges...remember those huge doors
My one was white like the one herehttp://members.optusnet.com.au/iroc-z/oz/oz1.html
But way cool as you rounded a corner and some long haired 70s beauty with 70s style boob tube and Levis would give you the peace sign and mouth the words "Hey Charger!"...ok more often than not it was some pimply faced 14 yr old brat
You would then plant it and 'smoke the bags' with nary a care in the world for the price of tyres or petrol.My Brother hand a Sandman with about 3 different horns and whistles and teardrop tinted windows in rear...blue printed hugemongous engine...
Ya right....we are getting old And ya tell youngans these days and they just don't believe you
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 25th Feb 2006 at 09:44.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1956 M. King Hubbert predicted US oil production would peak in 1969. The people at the time scoffed, labeling him a doom and gloom merchant. The actual year of peak production in the US was 1970. If you apply the same methods to world oil production then the time falls in the decade 2000-2010.
The oil crisis of the 1970s was caused by the tap being turned off and not a lack of supply. Only an idiot at that time would have thought the world was running out of oil (media types I guess).
Heavy crude does not produce more gasoline than light crude. It is less valuable and needs modification with natural gas. As for the world having thousands of years supply of natural gas - you are on your own with that prediction.
Do some reading about replacing the energy contained in 23 billion barrels of oil (annual world consumption) with another source and you will realise that this energy consumption level will be hard to continue.
Peak Oil - time to scoff and place ones head in the sand
The oil crisis of the 1970s was caused by the tap being turned off and not a lack of supply. Only an idiot at that time would have thought the world was running out of oil (media types I guess).
Heavy crude does not produce more gasoline than light crude. It is less valuable and needs modification with natural gas. As for the world having thousands of years supply of natural gas - you are on your own with that prediction.
Do some reading about replacing the energy contained in 23 billion barrels of oil (annual world consumption) with another source and you will realise that this energy consumption level will be hard to continue.
Peak Oil - time to scoff and place ones head in the sand
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The oil shocks of the 70’s were as a result of political forces applying pressure on western governments, not as a result of supply problems.
The current situation is a combination of both. Some observers believe that KSR will eventually fall to non western compliant extremist (Bedouins) that would not hesitate to turn the taps off to western consumers. Unfortunately, the “war on terror”could easily accelerate such a process. Obviously, the government of Venezuela will not step in to assist with fulfilling the energy demands of the US, unlike during the last great oil fiasco.
Also, there is huge concern that choke points such as the Straits of Hormuz and the Malacca Straits will be blocked by terrorist activity making it nearly impossible to feed energy dependant markets such as China, Japan and the US.
Far Canard is correct – the downstream costs of heavy oil are far greater than lighter oil such as light sweet crude from the ME. The US and EU are clearly shaping foreign policies to ensure greater access to light sweet crude. Nearly every battlefield on the planet (now and in the future) is linked in some way to the fact that oil consumers are fully aware that oil is running out and natural gas will not fully satisfy our current demands. The “war on terror” is little more than a smoke screen for a different agenda as key players such as Britain, America, Germany, France and Japan scramble to annex or control geopolitically important countries such as Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Iraq, Israel, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Colombia and others in order to soften the impact of the eventual decline of the oil age.
The current situation is a combination of both. Some observers believe that KSR will eventually fall to non western compliant extremist (Bedouins) that would not hesitate to turn the taps off to western consumers. Unfortunately, the “war on terror”could easily accelerate such a process. Obviously, the government of Venezuela will not step in to assist with fulfilling the energy demands of the US, unlike during the last great oil fiasco.
Also, there is huge concern that choke points such as the Straits of Hormuz and the Malacca Straits will be blocked by terrorist activity making it nearly impossible to feed energy dependant markets such as China, Japan and the US.
Far Canard is correct – the downstream costs of heavy oil are far greater than lighter oil such as light sweet crude from the ME. The US and EU are clearly shaping foreign policies to ensure greater access to light sweet crude. Nearly every battlefield on the planet (now and in the future) is linked in some way to the fact that oil consumers are fully aware that oil is running out and natural gas will not fully satisfy our current demands. The “war on terror” is little more than a smoke screen for a different agenda as key players such as Britain, America, Germany, France and Japan scramble to annex or control geopolitically important countries such as Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Iraq, Israel, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Colombia and others in order to soften the impact of the eventual decline of the oil age.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peak Oil has nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do with alternative energy sources. It is not the result of futures trading. It is not the result of global military strategies.
Peak oil is simply geology.
All those other things are the result of the simple science of the geology.
Peak oil is a fact - what we do about it however is the great unknown.
Peak oil is simply geology.
All those other things are the result of the simple science of the geology.
Peak oil is a fact - what we do about it however is the great unknown.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portugal (sometimes)
Age: 52
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly the problem stems from short sighted people such as Mr Bush/Blair and co. There are many ways of reducing oil consumption. How many times are you stuck in traffic going crazy with everyone else, wondering why all these people have a car to themselves, blocking the road and they do it everyday?
Mr Bush seems not to want to join the world in CO2 emissions reduction as it is not in the interests of the country, public transport could be made affordable (have you ever taken a train in the uk?). There are many solutions to the problem, but the problem is simple: The governments make far too much money from oil!
Why do we invade 3rd world countries? Simple, the ones we invade have oil, screw the others that "need help in the name of humanity and freedom" why else would they spend billions of dolars in a country that doesn't affect us?
It's this attitude, with people driving arround in xx litre cars all day for no reason that keeps economies going. True a/c are not the best thing in the world for oil supplies, but if we kept oil for the things there is no feasible substitute for then we would be ok. Oh except for the oil revenue!
Who dares to argue?
Mr Bush seems not to want to join the world in CO2 emissions reduction as it is not in the interests of the country, public transport could be made affordable (have you ever taken a train in the uk?). There are many solutions to the problem, but the problem is simple: The governments make far too much money from oil!
Why do we invade 3rd world countries? Simple, the ones we invade have oil, screw the others that "need help in the name of humanity and freedom" why else would they spend billions of dolars in a country that doesn't affect us?
It's this attitude, with people driving arround in xx litre cars all day for no reason that keeps economies going. True a/c are not the best thing in the world for oil supplies, but if we kept oil for the things there is no feasible substitute for then we would be ok. Oh except for the oil revenue!
Who dares to argue?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't argue - because what you are arguing against is the viability of the whole system of western economic growth.
That will just get you branded a scaremongerer or crazy by those who have a vested interest in the continuation of what is effectively an unsustainable path - which in many ways is all of us. We all have an interest in the continual growth of our economies. Our sharemarket depends on it, therefore our governments and their taxation revenue depend on it, our trade balance depends on it, our superannuation funds depend on it.
Growth comes from 'improving our quality of life'. i.e. buying more and more stuff, much of which we dont really need.
Problem is - the whole system relies on oil. Cheap oil.
The issue really is the fact that oil is far too cheap, not too expensive. One litre of high end refined petroleum sells for about $1.20. But has the energy equivalent to 25 hours of manual labour. We don't pay our workers 5c and hour, so why do we think $1.20 is expensive?
We dont have an easy cost effective replacement for the oil we mine - we dont produce oil, we mine it.
Biofuels sound good - and they are. The reality is, that to grow enough crop to produce fuel just to supply the current consumption in private motor vehicle in the US only, would require an arable area the size of Africa. And, you need to take into account the energy required to plant, harvest and produce the biofuel, including the cost of the additives.
An example of the poor use of this valuable resource is the free trade agreement between the US and China. Scrap Metal, Scrap Paper, Coal, Iron Ore and Resins gets shipped across the world to China, where cheap labour (more and more of whom work for US companies with their manufacturing bases in China) convert these materials in to consumer goods like TV's, Toys, Appliances and Tools and are then shipped back to the US.
What this really demonstrates is that the low transport cost makes this viable - i.e. Globalisation, or globalised trade, depends on more than any one other thing, the availability of cheap oil.
Closer to home, have you ever thought about how much of the air travel we see is essential?
What about all the military use - how much of it is indeed shoring up present and future oil supplies?
That will just get you branded a scaremongerer or crazy by those who have a vested interest in the continuation of what is effectively an unsustainable path - which in many ways is all of us. We all have an interest in the continual growth of our economies. Our sharemarket depends on it, therefore our governments and their taxation revenue depend on it, our trade balance depends on it, our superannuation funds depend on it.
Growth comes from 'improving our quality of life'. i.e. buying more and more stuff, much of which we dont really need.
Problem is - the whole system relies on oil. Cheap oil.
The issue really is the fact that oil is far too cheap, not too expensive. One litre of high end refined petroleum sells for about $1.20. But has the energy equivalent to 25 hours of manual labour. We don't pay our workers 5c and hour, so why do we think $1.20 is expensive?
We dont have an easy cost effective replacement for the oil we mine - we dont produce oil, we mine it.
Biofuels sound good - and they are. The reality is, that to grow enough crop to produce fuel just to supply the current consumption in private motor vehicle in the US only, would require an arable area the size of Africa. And, you need to take into account the energy required to plant, harvest and produce the biofuel, including the cost of the additives.
An example of the poor use of this valuable resource is the free trade agreement between the US and China. Scrap Metal, Scrap Paper, Coal, Iron Ore and Resins gets shipped across the world to China, where cheap labour (more and more of whom work for US companies with their manufacturing bases in China) convert these materials in to consumer goods like TV's, Toys, Appliances and Tools and are then shipped back to the US.
What this really demonstrates is that the low transport cost makes this viable - i.e. Globalisation, or globalised trade, depends on more than any one other thing, the availability of cheap oil.
Closer to home, have you ever thought about how much of the air travel we see is essential?
What about all the military use - how much of it is indeed shoring up present and future oil supplies?
Last edited by Shitsu_Tonka; 27th Feb 2006 at 05:10.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: oz
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont blame Blair, the U.K.s' oil use hasn't increased in a big way in decades, its a bit rich blaming Bush also, if we had a 300 million population our emissions would be just as bad as theirs. We are at least as oil dependant as anyone else and given that our own production has fallen off a cliff in recent years, we're going to be queuing up with all the other net importers.
Grandpa Aerotart
Don't blame Blair (and Bush etc)?
Read this and tell me Iraq wasn't about oil!
http://www.carbonweb.org/documents/c...esigns_web.pdf
And this;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...&articleId=762
Read this and tell me Iraq wasn't about oil!
http://www.carbonweb.org/documents/c...esigns_web.pdf
And this;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...&articleId=762
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iraq War about Oil?
WMD's wasnt it? Must have been. Otherwise the the public of US, UK & AU knowingly re-elected three war criminals.
Now somehow the US link it to the War on Terror - which of course has become a self fulfilling prophecy, as the Coalition of the Drilling have now fostered the greatest recruiting campaign for al-Qaeda.
- Michael Ware - TIME Magazine Baghdad Bureau Chief (An Aussie)
Interesting to read that KBR (part of Halliburton) lost the Iraq US DOD fuel supply contract after overcharging - by $1.2bn! Good to have Dead-Eye Dick looking after things isn't it!
WMD's wasnt it? Must have been. Otherwise the the public of US, UK & AU knowingly re-elected three war criminals.
Now somehow the US link it to the War on Terror - which of course has become a self fulfilling prophecy, as the Coalition of the Drilling have now fostered the greatest recruiting campaign for al-Qaeda.
Look, this is a magnet for any young man, who, like in Afghanistan, like Osama bin Laden himself in the '80s, you want to serve the cause, you pack up, and you go. It's the same with the money. If you want to give money for the jihad, then you want it to go where it's needed most and where it's sexiest. ... And Iraq is the hot place to be. It's the hot place to give your money, and if you want to serve anywhere in jihad, then this is the place to come. This is where you can fight the infidel, the great Satan himself, face to face.
Now, when you go home from your tour of duty, and you sit around the mosque or the teahouse, and you can say, "I was there; I fought in Iraq," that silences a room. And what we're now seeing is not only the physical building of this generation, [but] through the boundless promise that the Internet has offered the jihad world, there's a whole generation that's been inspired. Look how much has now been done in the name of Iraq and in retribution: from the London bombings to Bali and estranged involvement here in Iraq.
It's re-enlivened the entire organization and the cause and the idea. [For Abu Musab] al- Zarqawi and his immediate organization, [and] more broadly [for] Al Qaeda, they are the main beneficiaries of this war. The very thing George Bush says he came here to prevent, he is actually fostering and giving life to. It has to be the greatest irony of this whole experience.
Now, when you go home from your tour of duty, and you sit around the mosque or the teahouse, and you can say, "I was there; I fought in Iraq," that silences a room. And what we're now seeing is not only the physical building of this generation, [but] through the boundless promise that the Internet has offered the jihad world, there's a whole generation that's been inspired. Look how much has now been done in the name of Iraq and in retribution: from the London bombings to Bali and estranged involvement here in Iraq.
It's re-enlivened the entire organization and the cause and the idea. [For Abu Musab] al- Zarqawi and his immediate organization, [and] more broadly [for] Al Qaeda, they are the main beneficiaries of this war. The very thing George Bush says he came here to prevent, he is actually fostering and giving life to. It has to be the greatest irony of this whole experience.
Interesting to read that KBR (part of Halliburton) lost the Iraq US DOD fuel supply contract after overcharging - by $1.2bn! Good to have Dead-Eye Dick looking after things isn't it!
This is a professional pilots forum.
Why then do people get on their high horse about others driving an SUV, hummer, green house affect, Co2 emmissions........
After a seven hour flight in a 777, we have left just over 50 tonnes of hydro-carbons in the atmosphere (And that is considered economical!).
Then the cabin is cleaned out with about XX dozen kilos of more hydro-carbons and landfill.
The toilets are emptied and l don't even want to go there....
The chain just goes on an on.
And this is one aeroplane in one airline of the thousands flying around the globe every day.
Exploration of further oil fields has been slow over the last twenty years as the price has not made it worth the oil companies time to do so. This is changing now, as is the consideration of nuclear power.
My thoughts of bio-fuels is that it takes a lot of hectares to make a few litres. Not very eco-friendly in my eyes. Looking at how much prime coastal land in QLD is taken up by the sugar industry and it's Mafia mills is very sad indeed, with regards to how much they contribute to the Australian GDP - not much!
two bob's worth over
halas
Why then do people get on their high horse about others driving an SUV, hummer, green house affect, Co2 emmissions........
After a seven hour flight in a 777, we have left just over 50 tonnes of hydro-carbons in the atmosphere (And that is considered economical!).
Then the cabin is cleaned out with about XX dozen kilos of more hydro-carbons and landfill.
The toilets are emptied and l don't even want to go there....
The chain just goes on an on.
And this is one aeroplane in one airline of the thousands flying around the globe every day.
Exploration of further oil fields has been slow over the last twenty years as the price has not made it worth the oil companies time to do so. This is changing now, as is the consideration of nuclear power.
My thoughts of bio-fuels is that it takes a lot of hectares to make a few litres. Not very eco-friendly in my eyes. Looking at how much prime coastal land in QLD is taken up by the sugar industry and it's Mafia mills is very sad indeed, with regards to how much they contribute to the Australian GDP - not much!
two bob's worth over
halas
