Trumps Oil Industry....

[Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas + 96]

18 hours ago, Geoff Guenther said:

To underline your numbers: if 10% of NY has been infected and it caused 20,000 deaths, we can expect 50% infected to cause 100,000 deaths. The US has 15x the population of NY, so you could expect to see 1.5 million deaths unless we can delay the pandemic until we get better treatments.

NYC is nothing like the rest of the US.  But let's assume it is.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
Approximately 2 to 2.5 million Americans die every year from various diseases.

Currently, the weekly death rate is higher in many countries due to the virus.
But once summer begins, the weekly death rate may drop below previous years,
because people who would have died in the next 6-12 months, are dying right now.

If the virus returns in the fall, then I expect the total deaths for 2020 to be above normal,
and the death rates for 2021 and a few years beyond to be slightly below normal.

If the virus does not return in the fall, then I expect the total 2020 death rate
to be near normal (for the US as a whole).

A big chunk of "covid deaths" are people who would have died from something else within the next few years,
but instead, died from covid, or died with covid symptoms.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

16 minutes ago, Valerie Williams said:

Gerry, are you an oil/energy guy, or a doctor? Renaissance man? 

Haha, certainly not a renaissance man. I grew up in abject poverty, with no indoor plumbing. Then, when I was about six, we lucked into some oil and gas--not enough to make us rich but enough to lift us from poverty. That miracle addicted me to the oilfield. 

After college, I did virus research in a PhD program and carried that into medical school. There I took a turn and became an interventional cardiologist. That was my career. 

Fitzgerald was right: there are no second lives in America. After an illness laid me low a few years back, I attempted to reinvent myself, but did a pretty punk job of it writing medical mysteries. I know a lot about killer viruses and the heart, very little about anything else, I'm sorry to say. 

[D Coyne + 305]

21 hours ago, Valerie Williams said:

Just reading here, together with the very little I know or understand, it seems as if our only recourse against the Saudis, because they overproduced intentionally, without regard for the demand side of the equation nor the ecological consequences, is to refuse to buy their underpriced product. Gerry seems to be making the case that the way to do that is through tariffs, and D Coyne has pointed out that we're not a big enough customer for our tariffs to matter. Do I get the gist?

So is there some leverage besides tariffs? Or can we get the world community to form some sort of leveraged response to OPEC's price-fixing ways?

And one of the reasons I came looking on this forum is to ask if it's reasonable to suspect the Saudis weren't really fighting with the Russians at all, and that the American shale producers were the true target?

Valerie,

I would suggest it is the United States that has been overproducing, rather than the Saudis. It is pretty clear from the timeline that OPEC+ had cut output, the US has not, Russia and Saudis had a dispute over production cuts, Saudis were pissed at Russians and tried to take their market share.

The US tight oil producers cannot compete at $40/bo or less, they have been caught swimming naked as it were when the tide went out.

Data from https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world/petroleum-and-other-liquids/monthly-petroleum-and-other-liquids-production?pd=5&p=00000000000000000000000000000000002&u=0&f=M&v=mapbubble&a=-&i=none&vo=value&&t=C&g=00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001&l=249-ruvvvvvfvtvnvv1vrvvvvfvvvvvvfvvvou20evvvvvvvvvvvvvvs&s=94694400000&e=1577836800000

The answer to your final question is no, in my opinion.

Edited April 24, 2020 by D Coyne

[D Coyne + 305]

20 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Seconded.

So the plan is to ban all imports from OPEC?  That should work very well, we still produce 3000 kb/d more tight oil than US refineries can handle, and we import about 6 Mb/d of crude (even in April), seems a bad plan unless one believes the US crude input to refineries will remain at 12.5 Mb/d long term.

You guys really need to think this through.  Maybe OPEC responds with an export ban to the US in response, not a great situation for the US.

[D Coyne + 305]

19 hours ago, Valerie Williams said:

Except the part where we don't purchase enough of a share from them to have enough leverage to change their behavior? However, I guess it depends on your goal. If you want to change the Saudi's behavior, you need a multinational coalition to leverage enough buying power, and agree not to buy Saudi oil.

But if your goal is just American energy independence, then I suppose they can sell their cheap oil elsewhere and we'll just produce and refine our own - our own supply and our own demand? Will that work in the long term? How much shale oil do we have? Would we run out? And how would that affect the offshore market? My job is design of riser equipment & stacks. I selfishly want drillship contracts.

Valerie,

Tight oil only can be utilized up to about 5000 kb/d by US refineries, the rest gets exported.  It is doubtful that North America could be self sufficient in C+C output, unless Mexico and Canada can utilize the extra tight oil from the US.  North America might produce close to enough C+C to be self sufficient if the Alberta oil sands had a pipeline to the Gulf coast (or rail capacity to move the oil (a more expensive option).  Not sure if the mix of oil is right for existing refineries.  

The oil of course does not "run out", it gets more expensive and may gradually decrease in maximum output at any given oil price level.  A reasonable estimate for remaining resources of tight oil is about 75 Gb, at 1.8 Gb per year (5 Mb/d) and with about 15 Gb already produced, we would be halfway through the resource in about 17 years (this might be the peak if the output curve was roughly bell shaped).  Other US output(besides tight oil) will likely decline over the next 17 years, so peak US output is likely to occur before 2037.  If we quickly ramp tight oil output back to 8 Mb/d or more, the peak probably occurs between 2025 and 2030, likely 2025 if we go to more than 8 Mb/d, and roughly 2025 if we plateau at around 8 Mb/d.  Tight oil doesn't compete much with offshore as it is lighter and most US refineries need heavier crude.

[Valerie Williams + 129]

21 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Valerie,

I would suggest it is the United States that has been overproducing, rather than the Saudis. It is pretty clear from the timeline that OPEC+ had cut output, the US has not, Russia and Saudis had a dispute over production cuts, Saudis were pissed at Russians and tried to take their market share.

The US tight oil producers cannot compete at $40/bo or less, they have been caught swimming naked as it were when the tide went out.

Data from https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world/petroleum-and-other-liquids/monthly-petroleum-and-other-liquids-production?pd=5&p=00000000000000000000000000000000002&u=0&f=M&v=mapbubble&a=-&i=none&vo=value&&t=C&g=00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001&l=249-ruvvvvvfvtvnvv1vrvvvvfvvvvvvfvvvou20evvvvvvvvvvvvvvs&s=94694400000&e=1577836800000

The answer to your final question is no, in my opinion.

Ok, I know I'm bringing your level 10 conversation down to a level 2, I'm really out of my depth. But, I'm getting the impression that the consensus is that the US is not allowed into the oil export market, and if we try to export, we're the bad guys. Maybe I misunderstand, but we have not been a net exporter for decades, and we only recently tried to export what looks like small beans into the global oil market. Saudi Arabia drove the price down (whether the aim was at the US or at the Russians, I guess, is beside the point), but everyone says it's the fault of the US for "over-producing".  I am probably oversimplifying things, but isn't this more like the US is being denied entry into the market?

In your graph, above, it looks like we matched Saudi Arabia's volume in 2017. According to below, we were still consuming more than we produced in 2017. So to be able to be a net exporter, wouldn't we need to produce more? I don't understand why that makes us in the wrong. It looks to me more like the Saudis just want it to themselves. They produced 4X their own consumption in 2017.

[Valerie Williams + 129]

7 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Valerie,

Tight oil only can be utilized up to about 5000 kb/d by US refineries, the rest gets exported.  It is doubtful that North America could be self sufficient in C+C output, unless Mexico and Canada can utilize the extra tight oil from the US.  North America might produce close to enough C+C to be self sufficient if the Alberta oil sands had a pipeline to the Gulf coast (or rail capacity to move the oil (a more expensive option).  Not sure if the mix of oil is right for existing refineries.  

The oil of course does not "run out", it gets more expensive and may gradually decrease in maximum output at any given oil price level.  A reasonable estimate for remaining resources of tight oil is about 75 Gb, at 1.8 Gb per year (5 Mb/d) and with about 15 Gb already produced, we would be halfway through the resource in about 17 years (this might be the peak if the output curve was roughly bell shaped).  Other US output(besides tight oil) will likely decline over the next 17 years, so peak US output is likely to occur before 2037.  If we quickly ramp tight oil output back to 8 Mb/d or more, the peak probably occurs between 2025 and 2030, likely 2025 if we go to more than 8 Mb/d, and roughly 2025 if we plateau at around 8 Mb/d.  Tight oil doesn't compete much with offshore as it is lighter and most US refineries need heavier crude.

We posted about the same time. This answers some of my previous post.

[D Coyne + 305]

6 minutes ago, Valerie Williams said:

Ok, I know I'm bringing your level 10 conversation down to a level 2, I'm really out of my depth. But, I'm getting the impression that the consensus is that the US is not allowed into the oil export market, and if we try to export, we're the bad guys. Maybe I misunderstand, but we have not been a net exporter for decades, and we only recently tried to export what looks like small beans into the global oil market. Saudi Arabia drove the price down (whether the aim was at the US or at the Russians, I guess, is beside the point), but everyone says it's the fault of the US for "over-producing".  I am probably oversimplifying things, but isn't this more like the US is being denied entry into the market?

In your graph, above, it looks like we matched Saudi Arabia's volume in 2017. According to below, we were still consuming more than we produced in 2017. So to be able to be a net exporter, wouldn't we need to produce more? I don't understand why that makes us in the wrong. It looks to me more like the Saudis just want it to themselves. They produced 4X their own consumption in 2017.

Valerie,

The Saudis have been producing at 8 to 10 Mb/d for decades, they have been the World's swing producer, trying to keep oil prices stable, increasing output when prices went up and decreasing output when prices went down (particularly from 1987 to 2014).  Mostly the US has complained that the Saudis have nort produced enough oil to keep prices low, now they produce more and they are told they are overproducing.  Which is it, the US appears to not know what it wants?

The Saudis are just trying to sell their oil.  Which nation has increased their output more from 2005 to 2020?  If their is a glut of oil on World markets, it would seem logical to conclude that the nation that has increased its output by 7500 kb/d (the US) would be more responsible for the glut than the nation that increased its output by 300 kb/d over the July 2005 to Jan 2020 period.  Note that World C+C output increased by about 9000 kb/d over that July 2005 to Jan 2020 period, of that increase 83% was from the US.  The US is free to export as much oil as it wishes, but has to compete on price.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

40 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Valerie,

I would suggest it is the United States that has been overproducing, rather than the Saudis. It is pretty clear from the timeline that OPEC+ had cut output, the US has not, Russia and Saudis had a dispute over production cuts, Saudis were pissed at Russians and tried to take their market share.

 

Pre-pandemic: the US was "overproducing" only in the sense that OPEC+ wanted a higher price. We were selling at a profit as the market defines the term. In a market economy, The most marginal producers quit making a profit and quit producing. In the real world this process has a fair amount of inertia, so businesses and their employees get hurt. The problem: OPEC is a cartel and controlled enough production to distort the market.

Pandemic: a non-market-driven consumption collapse, both more abrupt and deeper than any in history, requires a non-market government intervention, since the real-world inertia in the system cannot reduce production before storage overflows. physical production must be reduced to below consumption on an emergency basis to drain storage back to normal levels. I hope that is  a way to minimize the physical damage this will cause.

post-pandemic: In my fantasy, this is where the market will kick in. If we isolate the US+Canada market from the rest of the world, then within that market, production will drop to match consumption, and we will have a supply of secure oil. An exchange of LTO for imported heavy crude should be permitted to ease the transition of refineries to the US+Canada input mix, and export will be permitted and will occur if US oil is profitable on the international market.

[Valerie Williams + 129]

12 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The problem: OPEC is a cartel and controlled enough production to distort the market.

^^^

14 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

post-pandemic: In my fantasy, this is where the market will kick in. If we isolate the US+Canada market from the rest of the world, then within that market, production will drop to match consumption, and we will have a supply of secure oil. An exchange of LTO for imported heavy crude should be permitted to ease the transition of refineries to the US+Canada input mix, and export will be permitted and will occur if US oil is profitable on the international market.

I can see D Coyne's concerns about how a protectionist market can cause a backlash and ill will. However, these ARE extreme circumstances, and if (a really big if), our politicians could advocate for us that the protectionism is temporary, to heal our energy industry, that we don't mean harm or ill will by it, and when the supply is stabilized we will open back up... that "could" work, I think.  I seems to me to be no different than how a lot of countries are halting or restricting food exports right now, due to fears of famine. Special constraints under extreme circumstances to avoid a total collapse?

[RSD + 41]

There is no right answer -

• if the U.S. puts tariffs on Saudi oil then the Saudis will pull out of the recent OPEC++ deal that "Trump brokered" - and then the Russians will follow suit and the oil price will really collapse
• if the U.S. bans Saudi oil imports then the Saudis have a range of options including taxing profits of American companies operating in Saudi - Dow, ExxonMobil etc, or take other measures that they see fit.

So I think that there is just going to be someshort term pain until the drop in demand lowers U.S. production down to more suitable levels.  Effectively what the Saudis are doing is forcing the U.S. oil producers to reduce the production by relatively similar amounts to what the Saudis and Russians agreed to reduce their production by.  DT did say to the Saudis that while he couldn't order production cuts the U.S. would be cutting production by about 4 million bbls a day - Saudis are just making sure that happens.  What is the latest data on U.S. oil production?

[D Coyne + 305]

28 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Pre-pandemic: the US was "overproducing" only in the sense that OPEC+ wanted a higher price. We were selling at a profit as the market defines the term. In a market economy, The most marginal producers quit making a profit and quit producing. In the real world this process has a fair amount of inertia, so businesses and their employees get hurt. The problem: OPEC is a cartel and controlled enough production to distort the market.

Pandemic: a non-market-driven consumption collapse, both more abrupt and deeper than any in history, requires a non-market government intervention, since the real-world inertia in the system cannot reduce production before storage overflows. physical production must be reduced to below consumption on an emergency basis to drain storage back to normal levels. I hope that is  a way to minimize the physical damage this will cause.

post-pandemic: In my fantasy, this is where the market will kick in. If we isolate the US+Canada market from the rest of the world, then within that market, production will drop to match consumption, and we will have a supply of secure oil. An exchange of LTO for imported heavy crude should be permitted to ease the transition of refineries to the US+Canada input mix, and export will be permitted and will occur if US oil is profitable on the international market.

Dan,

Most tight oil companies are not profitable at a WTI oil price of less than $65/bo.  Now we currently have the situation where oil producers are producing too much oil, the cartel's aim is to increase the price of oil so clearly they have failed in their aim.

Not convinced many of the tight oil companies are profitable, perhaps a couple.

https://www.haynesboone.com/-/media/Files/Energy_Bankruptcy_Reports/Oil_Patch_Bankruptcy_Monitor

215 E&P companies in the US have filed for bankruptcy since 2015 with cumulative debt for all cases of $129 billion.  I have heard estimates of aggregate debt for the tight oil and shale gas industry of about $300 billion (both private and public companies).

 

[D Coyne + 305]

9 minutes ago, RSD said:

There is no right answer -

• if the U.S. puts tariffs on Saudi oil then the Saudis will pull out of the recent OPEC++ deal that "Trump brokered" - and then the Russians will follow suit and the oil price will really collapse
• if the U.S. bans Saudi oil imports then the Saudis have a range of options including taxing profits of American companies operating in Saudi - Dow, ExxonMobil etc, or take other measures that they see fit.

So I think that there is just going to be someshort term pain until the drop in demand lowers U.S. production down to more suitable levels.  Effectively what the Saudis are doing is forcing the U.S. oil producers to reduce the production by relatively similar amounts to what the Saudis and Russians agreed to reduce their production by.  DT did say to the Saudis that while he couldn't order production cuts the U.S. would be cutting production by about 4 million bbls a day - Saudis are just making sure that happens.  What is the latest data on U.S. oil production?

Most recent weekly estimate is 12.2 Mbo/d down about 500 kb/d from January (the weekly estimates just utilize the most recent Short Term Energy Outlook estimates, which are often not very accurate.  I expect actual output will be lower than this estimate, perhaps 11.5 Mb/d for April 2020 and maybe 10.5 Mb/d in May.

[James Regan + 1,776]

23 hours ago, El Nikko said:

Well that escalated quickly

Phew.......lol

[D Coyne + 305]

26 minutes ago, Valerie Williams said:

^^^

I can see D Coyne's concerns about how a protectionist market can cause a backlash and ill will. However, these ARE extreme circumstances, and if (a really big if), our politicians could advocate for us that the protectionism is temporary, to heal our energy industry, that we don't mean harm or ill will by it, and when the supply is stabilized we will open back up... that "could" work, I think.  I seems to me to be no different than how a lot of countries are halting or restricting food exports right now, due to fears of famine. Special constraints under extreme circumstances to avoid a total collapse?

Valerie,

If negotiated it might be fine, not exporting is less of a problem, the US banned exports for the 1975 to 2015 period and only oil producers in the US were upset.  Yes these are extreme circumstances, but in this case I happen to think letting the free market work makes sense, I don't have a problem banning exports of crude oil, but banning imports just is a bit too third world for my taste.

[James Regan + 1,776]

21 hours ago, Valerie Williams said:

And how would that affect the offshore market? My job is design of riser equipment & stacks. I selfishly want drillship contracts.

I knew you were here for good reason Valerie another Sub-Normal - not many here.....

[Mike Shellman + 548]

1 hour ago, Valerie Williams said:

1 hour ago, D Coyne said:

The oil of course does not "run out", it gets more expensive and may gradually decrease in maximum output at any given oil price level.  A reasonable estimate for remaining resources of tight oil is about 75 Gb, at 1.8 Gb per year (5 Mb/d) and with about 15 Gb already produced, we would be halfway through the resource in about 17 years (this might be the peak if the output curve was roughly bell shaped).

Dennis, at the end of 2018 the US had somewhere between 38-43G BO of proven, producing oil reserves (PDP). Those PDP reserves grew some in 2019 but are being decimated by 2020 pricing. I truly believe in a price range of $30-40 WTI, about all we can expect for quite a while, I fear, our true PDP reserves provide America with a reserve to production ratio of less than 5, as in 5 years. That should be alarming to all Americans. Its not. 

It's not alarming because of the false narrative of shale oil abundance and the inability to discern from proven producing, probable and "technically recoverable, as yet discovered, requiring much higher oil price" reserve categories. Numerous people contribute to this narrative, including our own government and data sell companies like Rystad and Enverus. Some of it is malicious, I believe. In all cases it is  misleading and confusing to the public and the politicians they elect to engage in energy policies.

Your quote for instance. You fail to classify where those 78G barrels of LTO will come from and how, in God's name, they will be paid for...where the capital will come from to drill hundreds of thousands of more unprofitable shale oil wells to reach that 78G level.  Respectfully, you are adding to the confusion. Your estimate for LTO remaining reserves is 4 times what I believe our total proven producing reserves currently are in all of America's producing basins, conventional and unconventional. The US oil industry is being destroyed at the moment; I am unclear if you fully grasp that and where, if ever, the capital is going to come from for it to recover. Hope for higher oil prices is not a plan.

But when people see 78 billion barrels or 178 billion, or hear "limitless natural resources" and other crap from Washington DC, they think hell, we can isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, become energy independent (regardless of costs), place tariffs on other county's imports to the US, that we can ignore resource waste like flaring, the economic waste of of selling oil below extraction costs, and export all we want, at a financial loss, because we have so much of the stuff.

This is a grave mistake. I think, for instance, if Americans understood how precarious our oil future truly is they would forget the free enterprise crap (and trust me, after 50 years of producing oil and gas, it IS crap) and they would be very much in favor of proration  and/or increasing well spacing in Texas, and Oklahoma and North Dakota and everywhere else. And they would demand that exports be stopped immediately.  

Thanks, as always, for your support.

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by Mike Shellman

[RSD + 41]

2 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Most recent weekly estimate is 12.2 Mbo/d down about 500 kb/d from January (the weekly estimates just utilize the most recent Short Term Energy Outlook estimates, which are often not very accurate.  I expect actual output will be lower than this estimate, perhaps 11.5 Mb/d for April 2020 and maybe 10.5 Mb/d in May.

From memory the Saudis and Russians each cut 3 million bbl/day as part of the recent agreement, and applying that on a pro-rata basis means that the U.S. should be cutting production by 4 million bbl/day to match the cuts - so that requires U.S. production to drop to about 8.5 million bbl/day if you include the extra 250k bbl/day that Trump agreed to do for Mexico - so the Saudi VLCC's are just helping to ensure that the U.S. producers uphold their end of the production cuts... - still a fair amount to cut...

[James Regan + 1,776]

How long on this forum have we been discussing how the LTO sector has been operating on borrowed time and capital, completely unsustainable and flawed business model. Is this the Kingdoms fault, everyone wants a scapegoat during times of woe. When looking at the KSA try looking at it from their side, how long could they be expected to make cuts vs zero reciprocation from the USA, quite the contrary production was ramping up and set to continue. Something had to give, it was always coming just when was the point. Well timed or bad timing, without doubt the shale play were always in the crosshairs of both KSA and RSA. 

A utopian dream of WTI trading, producing and being consumed privately in North America, is a dream. Fact- the oil industry is not a free market its controlled at some point from extraction to final consumer.

Edited April 24, 2020 by James Regan

[Valerie Williams + 129]

18 minutes ago, James Regan said:

another Sub-Normal

We're in the same sector! Awesome. I feel sometimes like we're competing uphill against the shale and land producers the same way they are disadvantaged against Saudi Arabia. Geography, environment and context add a lot to the cost of production, so although D Coyne's admonition that we have to compete on price 'IS' fair, in a pure free market way, it also feels a bit defeating when the market is down. In a down market, only the Saudis are able to turn a profit because production is so cheap for them, and there is no room for anyone else. Offshore, it takes us a long time and a lot of money before we even begin to produce. By the time we get there, the happenin' market often ain't so happenin' anymore.

[RSD + 41]

15 minutes ago, James Regan said:

How long on this forum have we been discussing how the LTO sector has been operating on borrowed time and capital, completely unsustainable and flawed business model. Is this the Kingdoms fault, everyone wants a scapegoat during times of woe. When looking at the KSA try looking at it from their side, how long could they be expected to make cuts vs zero reciprocation from the USA, quite the contrary production was ramping up and set to continue. Something had to give, it was always coming just when was the point. Well timed or bad timing, without doubt the shale play were always in the crosshairs of both KSA and RSA. 

A utopian dream of WTI trading, producing and being consumed privately in North America, is a dream. Fact- the oil industry is not a free market its controlled at some point from extraction to final consumer.

That's it in a nutshell.  How long is it going to take for U.S. production to fall to 8.5 mbbl/day like I calculated in my previous post?  If the U.S. puts tariffs on Saudi oil before U.S. production has fallen to the required level then kiss goodbye to any agreements - the Saudis will go back to 13.5 mbbl/day, the Russians will respond, and if demand is still weak then those levels of production and the resulting oil price will drive U.S. production down.

If the U.S. isn't careful then next time the U.S. wants a production cut OPEC++ will simply say "you start cutting and each month we will pro-rata our production based on your production for the previous month"

Edited April 24, 2020 by RSD

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 minutes ago, Valerie Williams said:

32 minutes ago, James Regan said:

another Sub-Normal

We're in the same sector! Awesome. I feel sometimes like we're competing uphill against the shale and land producers the same way they are disadvantaged against Saudi Arabia. Geography, environment and context add a lot to the cost of production, so although D Coyne's admonition that we have to compete on price 'IS' fair, in a pure free market way, it also feels a bit defeating when the market is down. In a down market, only the Saudis are able to turn a profit because production is so cheap for them, and there is no room for anyone else. Offshore, it takes us a long time and a lot of money before we even begin to produce. By the time we get there, the happenin' market often ain't so happenin' anymore.

Aww.  And to think how you two started off.  😀😁😂🤣

[RSD + 41]

3 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Aww.  And to think how you two started off.  😀😁😂🤣

Its our version of Kim Jong Un going from being the Evil Empire to DT's bestus buddy!😁

[Valerie Williams + 129]

4 minutes ago, RSD said:

Its our version of Kim Jong Un going from being the Evil Empire to DT's bestus buddy!😁

I don't even want to know which of us Kim Jong Un, and which is DT!!! 

Edited April 24, 2020 by Valerie Williams

[RSD + 41]

2 minutes ago, Valerie Williams said:

I don't even want to know which of us Kim Jong Un, and which is DT!!! 

LOL!  Well if one of you recommends to us that we shove a light bulb up our arse to cure Coronavirus then we will know which one is DT...