(from EnergyBiz Insider)

I just read the responses from your readers concerning energy issues for the past week as I have read all the responses from previous weeks in 2007.


What strikes me is that the readers are well informed, engaged, highly experienced and mostly from the practical hands-on side of the energy business. Their knowledge for the most part comes from actually working within the energy production, distribution or research industry. These people care enough to respond and like myself most bristle at the impractical and scream when the ridiculous is sanctimoniously placed on the pedestal of possibility. From listening to EnergyBiz responders it is clear, that for the most part, these experienced people ask good questions and dig into issues, don't assume conclusions and want to resolve energy concerns in a balanced and effective way. The EnergyBiz forum debate is excellent except that for debate to be beneficial it should eventually conclude in refined action. Perhaps it is just my perception, but it appears that web based debate for the most part ends up in an electronic landfill filed under "YaDa YaDa YaDa". Vetting these responses and finding a way to utilize the information gained to expand the debate on an industry or national level would benefit all involved and a priority of EnergyBiz. Additionally, for 2008, EnergyBiz should consider being more like its Responders and engage energy company executives and government officials vigorously with solid reality based questions and vet responses with an emphasis on technical reality rather than the, "Our Lawyers said not to offend anybody", simple minded MBA driven "GEWIZ" approach. Keep up the good work and make improvement everyday a priority.


Phil D'Angelo
JoDAN Technologies, Ltd
Glen Mills, PA


Bali: A New Beginning - January 2, 2008


The IPCC process, and the Kyoto and Bali conferences, are magnificent edifices built on the sands of a flood plain. The sands are the inconvenient fact that there is no SCIENTIFIC linkage between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global climate. Thus, any measures to reduce CO2 emissions to "reduce global warming" are a waste of effort and financial resources. (Saving natural resources and fighting genuine pollution are entirely different matters.)


The present global warming began around 1850 and marked the end of the Little Ice Age, an unpleasantly cold period of a few centuries when New York harbor and the Thames River froze solid and which provided the inspiration for the painting of Washington being rowed across an ice-filled Delaware River. The change from 1850 can't be blamed on CO2 emissions because the world was only beginning to be seriously industrialized, and CO2 levels were much as they had been at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The world has gone through climate cycles since time immemorial, and there is no good reason to believe that the present warming (a mere 0.6°C since around 1850) is anything other than a normal occurrence. Our climate has warmed and cooled (slightly) several times since 1850, and has not warmed since 1998.


The most important greenhouse gas, by far, is WATER, as vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is only a minor player, in addition to which Nature puts about 30 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere as does Man.


We are seeing the effect of a marvellous Chicken Little campaign by environmental activists who have convinced an uncritical media that their is equivalent to real science. The scare stories of sharply-rising temperatures are all based on computer simulations, glorified video games, which are strongly criticized as meaningless by experts who are knowledgeable about computer simulations. The IPCC process is seriously flawed, aimed only at proving that AGW is taking place and disregarding any technical information that does not support their predetermined agenda. The belief in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has become a secular religion, with believers and heretics. Many climate experts who know better (and they are many) are afraid to prick this balloon of belief for fear of loss of research grants, or even their livelihoods.


Rather than debate the issue, most of the activists revert to ad hominem attacks on the sceptics of their apocalyptic view of our future. Their references to funding from "Big Oil" and comparisons with tobacco companies are so frequent and predictable that they are laughable. (They also fail to mention the millions that environmental organizations solicit in contributions every year or the millions that Al Gore has made through his error-riddled book, film, and slide presentations.) The problem is that uninformed readers believe them because they seem so credible, aided by the unquestioning and uncurious media. I know better because I have spent at least a couple of hours a day for more than a year reading on the subject via the Internet. Climate sceptics are far more persuasive to those who are open-minded.


An example of the ad hominem nature of warmist attacks is to refer to sceptics as "climate deniers", as if the case were closed. (They also say "the science is settled", which it most certainly is not.) In reality, the sceptics are those of us who are sticking by science. The warmist are promoting only belief, and are as credible as a scruffy street-corner preacher. Remember: the opposite of scepticism is gullibility.


Ian L. McQueen
Glenwood, NB


Your title is perfect. Bali is a "New Beginning" because Kyoto (the "Old Beginning") has accomplished nothing and will accomplish nothing by 2012. The "New Beginning" will start from a higher level of annual emissions and a higher level of ambient CO2 concentrations than the "Old Beginning". This would have been true, even if the developed nations among the Kyoto signatories had met the emission reduction goals they agreed to achieve, because of the massive increases in emissions by China and India, among others.


You could perform a real service by publishing a table listing all of the Kyoto signatories, their 1990 CO2 emissions, their 2007 CO2 emissions and the change (+/-); and, a table listing year end global average temperature, global average atmospheric CO2 concentration and global annual CO2 emissions for the period 1990-2007.


Edward A. Reid, Jr.
President
Fire to Ice, Inc.
 

Coal Town Gets New Light - January 4, 2008


As I understand it, Department of Energy [DOE], one day following Mattoon IL selection as site, cautioned that costs were getting out of hand and it wasn't ready to sign off on the $1.8 billion FutureGen power plant. DOE stated that projected cost overruns require a reassessment of FutureGen's design and that DOE would provide more details in January 2008 on plans to restructure FutureGen.


Their economic issue may focus on the capture and disposal of Carbon Dioxide [CO2] - so-called Greenhouse Gas. Factoring in Carbon Capture and disposal [Sequestration - geological burial] increases the cost from 20% [per Ed Rubin, an environmental engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University] to 30 - 40 % [Sithe Global Power's proposed 750 MW Nevada plant]. For example, Florida Light & Power, proposed and cancelled 1800 MW Glades County ultra-clean plant, was estimated at $1.2 billion. If Carbon Capture and Sequestration had been added, estimated cost could have increased by $240 to $480 million. If FPL could not recoup such costs via higher electricity rates, plant cancellation may have been pre-destined and justified.


Hopefully, the FutureGen Project will move ahead - demonstrating cost-effective technology to capture and dispose of Carbon Dioxide - justifying construction of new coal-fired power plants.


Dr. Richard W. Goodwin, P.E.
Environmental Engineering Consultant
 

Energy Bill Focuses on Fuel Efficiency - January 7, 2008


The net effect of all biofuels projects is either puny or negative.


Brazil is repeatedly cited as an ethanol success story. Despite all the hype and their uniquely favorable conditions for raising sugar cane, they still use petroleum fuel to supply 80% of their motor fuel energy. To accomplish even this much under uniquely ideal conditions they are continuously clearing virgin land to raise food, i.e. killing the trees that have been eating atmospheric CO² for eons.


The Brazilian experience demonstrates just how utterly fatuous our ethanol from corn project is.


Drastic world population reduction remains our salvation.


Don Hirschberg
 

This ethanol policy is most irresponsible and uneconomical - it is akin to the latest alcohol policy we had, the Prohibition. As such, it will disappear as soon as the Elections are over. Here are three arguments for thought.


One, we subsidize ethanol to the tune of $0.50 per gallon. At the current production level, it is a blip on the budget screen, a mere $3Bn. If we are to go to 15Bn gallons ex cellulosic, two things will happen. First, grain prices will continue to go up. This is the main reason why producers are losing money today, and shelving plans for expansion - see Pacific Ethanol cancelling plans and Verasun buying capacity instead of building. Therefore, subsidies will have to increase - I suspect to $1.50 per gallon. This would amount to $22Bn a political hot potato at horizon 2015 when the big problem will be Medicare/Social Security funding.


We could offset this by increasing the acreage planted. With an average yield of 150 bushels of corn per acre and 1 Bushel per 2.8 gallon of ethanol, this additional 9Bn gallons would require 3.3Bn additional bushels, i.e. 21Mn acres. As the chart below indicates, 2007 already saw the largest increase in acreage planted in a long time, indeed since 1944, up 15% or 9Mn acres. So maybe we can get there, but it will induce further dislocations.


Two, we currently export 55Mn Tons of corn, i.e. 2.2Bn bushels, and this represents 65% of the world's imports. This happens to be the same number we consumed to produce ethanol in 2007. Unless production increases dramatically, as per the above, we are walking a disappearing line.


Three, ethanol does pollute. I refer to an article reproduced in Energy Central dated 5/7/07. Even the EPA agrees - Nox, Smog (Ozone), etc. So, mix it all up, even with the benefit of slightly curtailed oil consumption, ethanol is not the answer. Lester Brown from The Earth Policy Institute said it much better than me in Congress.


The answer is, yes, cellulosic ethanol - but this is still early R&D. In the meantime, CAFÉ most definitively, and a real push into electric/hybrids vehicles. I suspect it would take less than $22Bn per year to fund these industries - even less than the $3bn we currently spend on farm votes, on top of overall farm subsidies.


Franck J. Prissert
C.E.O.
Capital Max, Inc.


The United States has the most concentrated energy supply in the world in the oil shale located in the Rocky Mountain area. There is an estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil in a very small area.


New methods of extracting the oil from the oil shale have been developed but the Federal Government, which owns the land, simply sits on its hands and will not allow a concerted effort to use this supply of energy.


The so-called "Global Warming Crisis" blamed on increases in C0² is being systematically disproven by the reputable scientist that are coming forward en masse to refute the propaganda put forth by Al Gore in his bid to gain the Presidency of the United States.


Ethanol made from corn is almost a net energy loss.this has been known since the process was touted as a replacement for oil. Corn should not be used to produce it.for it could be used to feed hungry people abroad and bring a net cash flow into the United States.


If we were to have a "Manhattan type" project to extract and refine the oil in the oil shale. I would predict that the United States could become an oil exporting nation within ten years.


It would not matter the cost of the extraction of the oil for the "money stays at home", creates American jobs and improves our economy instead of the economies of those nations that support international terrorism. The US could control the price of oil worldwide and the dollar would once again become "stronger than Ajax".


Johnny A Williams
Conroe, Texas
Physicist with 35 years experience in the Power Industry


Nuclear Energy's Presence - January 9, 2008


Would we have ever reached the moon with the type of thinking that is going on today? John F. Kennedy had a vision that the whole country got behind and we as a nation were able to reach his goal approximately five years after his assassination. We can continue to wallow in our fears or we can resolve to solve the problem together and come up with an appropriate solution. We already have the technology to store spent fuel indefinitely because we know how to transport it. If the present size of Yucca Mountain is too small we may need to develop other sites as well. Presently the spent fuel is being stored in everyone's back yard (the nearest Nuclear Plant) safely and effectively without incident.


President Kennedy was able to motivate the people to get behind his goal. That is truly what cost him his life, because our enemies feared his power. Do you think he was fearful of losing his life when he was leading this country? I believe he gained his inner strength from the same source of power that helped him to swim miles in the ocean with another soldier on his back.


We can continue to bicker and squabble and run from our personal fears, or we can suck it up. We must draw on that inner strength that is available for the asking, and finish the necessary projects to continue to be a strong nation. The solution is not just Yucca Mountain. The solution is not just reclamation of the fuel for other sources. We do not even have all of the alternative solutions identified yet. The real solution is to have the country pull together to help solve our energy crisis together, much as we were able to reach the moon.


G Alan Bysfield
Sr Staff Electrical Engineer
System Engineering
Cooper Nuclear Station


There has never been any danger to humans from nuclear waste stored at Department of Energy sites, used nuclear fuel stored at nuclear power plant sites, or shipments of nuclear materials and nuclear waste.


Significant amounts of highly radioactive wastes have leaked from old tanks at DOE sites, but none of this waste has contaminated the water table.


Wastes in soil at DOE's Hanford Site are some 200 feet above the water table. Water from seven inches of annual rainfall evaporates at the surface and provides no mechanism for moving the wastes into the water table.


Wastes leaking from tanks at DOE's Savannah River Site was into heavily reinforced concrete vaults surrounding the tanks, not into the water table.


Even if some radioactivity did reach the water table, ion exchange capacity of both Hanford and SRS soils would preclude movement into water supplies off site for periods of time much longer than decay times of the highly radioactive material.


Used fuel assemblies containing nuclear waste can be safely stored at nuclear power plant sites - or other sites - until decisions are made for appropriate disposition.


Since this used fuel and depleted uranium stored at uranium enrichment sites can be used to provide enormous amounts of energy for future generations, it must be maintained available for such use in advanced nuclear power plants.


Reprocessing and recycle facility designs provided in 1978 by DuPont based on its successful reprocessing experiences at the Savannah River Plant would permit carrying out economically viable fuel recycle without credible danger of nuclear weapons proliferation to proliferation threat.


Clinton Bastin


*Bastin, of Avondale Estates, Ga., had lead responsibility for Atomic Energy Commission programs for disposition of used nuclear fuel, storage and studies for final disposal of nuclear wastes and processing of nuclear materials. He was recognized by the Department of Energy as "the U.S. authority on reprocessing.





Most of the comments I have read deal with one form of generation over another. From a practical perspective all viable options need to be considered to meet load growth. Nuclear is the most viable for generating significant megawattage; however, it is plagued with misinformation. Concerns about safety and spent fuels need to be better understood and for this I fault the nuclear fleet owners which have failed to properly educate and inform the general public. From a safely perspective Chernobyl was a disaster given that containment of reactors was not a design build criteria in Russia at that time. Three Mile Island was a success story in that human error resulted in a radioactive leak but automated systems contained that leak. Regarding spent fuels, if all the spent fuel rods produced during the 40+ year history of nuclear power in the US were stored in a single location the volumemetric containment would be equivalent to one football field about 15 feet deep. If the US recycled its spent fuel rods the volume would be reduced to a single end zone about 10 feet deep. Nuclear power generation has a zero carbon footprint.


Wind and solar are still not cost justified and most likely will not be until more effective storage technology is developed. However, both should still be stressed to decrease CO² emissions.


Bob Percopo
Executive Vice President
AIG Global Marine & Energy


Nuclear energy in Sweden has paid its way. It paid it with higher employment, lower costs for energy intensive industries, higher tax returns to finance things like health care and education, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, etc, etc. It could do the same everywhere.


In addition, as pointed out by myself and other contributors to the important forum EnergyPulse (www.energypulse.net), if amortization periods roughly corresponded to physical 'lengths of life'. Then if would be 'very' easy - as compared to 'merely' easy - to prove to rational persons who understand a little secondary school math that nuclear is the most competitive source of electric power.


Ferdinand E. Banks
Professor


Congress recently enacted a provision in the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal 2008, which the news media has touted as a major boost in energy project loan guarantees, particularly for nuclear, plants. However, these guarantees are not contained in the actual law and are based on non-legally binding bill report language without a budget offset.


The actual provision of law signed into law not only fails to resolve major Congressional conflicts, it also creates more hurdles for the Energy department to overcome before it can execute its loan guarantee program.


Given these circumstances, it's likely that if you queried the Wall Street banks, you might find that it's premature to be popping champagne corks.


Robert Alvarez
Senior Scholar
Institute for Policy Studies


I note in your "Nuclear Energy's Presence" article today that there are some incorrect statements or statements that make seem to be off-handed in regard to nuclear power, as follow:


Yes, Nuclear Power Plants got $18.5 B in loan guarantees in the December Energy legislation, BUT Renewables and Energy Efficiency also got $18 B ($10 B and $8 B, respectively).
Please tell your readers more clearly sometime that all Advocates (Renewables included and not just Nuclear) rightly claim that loan guarantees are not taxpayer handouts, but simply security for lenders in the unlikely event of the borrowers default.
In your third paragraph you state that several nuclear plants have recently received operating license extensions for another 20 years. Webster's defines several as "more than two but not many". In fact the NRC has given license extension approvals to 48 plants, 14 more are awaiting approval, and 22 more are expected to apply for extension. In short, about 81% of the US nuclear fleet will soon have license extension to allow operation for up to 60 years. [I covered this and other subjects in a book, "A Brighter Tomorrow", I co-authored i n 2004 for Senator Pete Domenici; see page 54]
Spent fuel dry storage tasks are all above ground and not underground as you stated.

I hope this is helpful to you for future use ----- I like to see nuclear get attention and hopefully positive ---- or as James Lovelock's Gaia theory implies we will be like Kevin Costner's Waterworld people within a few centuries.


Julian Steyn
Energy Resources International, Inc.


I enjoy your newsletter; almost every edition covers topics that interest me.


Having spent more than 30 years involved with designing, building and supplying material to nuclear power plants, and being active in IEEE nuclear qualification standard writing activities, there is a real difference in the perceived vs. actual risks regarding nuclear power. Other than nuclear, at this time we have no other viable large scale, base load generation alternatives.


I highly recommend a recently published book, "Power to Save the World - The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, published by Knopf. A former anti-nuclear activist, she has taken an in-depth look at the industry and has changed her mind regarding the industry. The book is full of facts - and opinions - regarding the relative risks of various energy sources and the possibilities of terrorist attacks, etc. causing a large scale radiation risk.


Most people (myself included despite my experience and graduate level education) are irrational regarding radiation risk. The book brings us back to earth! The activities we should have taken at least 20 years ago regarding new nuclear plants as base load generation would have greatly improved our energy independence, and our trade imbalance. Luckily, the NRC has gone a long way toward streamlining the licensing process - although this needs to be proved in the rebirth. We can't go on increasing GDP with decreased energy usage - we need more non-fossil capacity.


Jan Pirrong
President
CableLAN Products, Inc.


Energy Biz publishes a number of articles and letters with substantial misrepresentations of nuclear power.


* Nuclear Waste - Nuclear power is the only technology for generating electricity that DOES incorporate most of the "external" costs for generating power, unlike other methods. The cost of the power includes charges for decommissioning and long-term handling of spent fuel. Huge sums are collected from nuclear utilities for long-term management of spent fuel -- the total collected to date by the federal government is over $28 billion. Even after the inflated, gross and embarrassing fiscal mismanagement and expenditure of $8 billion to date by the federal government for the pitiful progress at the Yucca Mountain repository, there is still a balance of more than $20 billion in the fund, and increasing every day.


* Edward F. Sproat III, Director for Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, in testimony before the Committee on the Budget, US House of Representatives on October 4, 2007 stated: " The Nuclear Waste Fund is funded by a 1 mil per kilowatt-hour fee on all nuclear generation in this country. As of today, the Fund has a balance of approximately $20.7 billion, which is invested in U.S. Treasury instruments. The Government receives approximately $750 million per year in revenues from on-going nuclear generation and the Fund averages about 5.5 percent annual return on its investments."


* Why publish letters and articles claiming that utilities do not pay for managing their wastes when it is an obvious lie? Interestingly, "greenie" power advocates do not include the costs of disposal in their calculations. Solar panels, for example, have some very nasty materials in them, and environmentalists are planning to just dump them in a landfill?


* Interestingly, most (97%) of the nuclear "waste" is not waste at all but valuable fuel and elements created during nuclear processes. Metals reclaimed through reprocessing include Uranium, Plutonium, Zirconium, and Rhodium and Ruthenium (important noble metal catalysts).


* The oceans of the world alone contain about 4.5 Billion tons of natural Uranium, plus many other radioactive elements. Needless-to- say, landmasses contain much more than that. It is rather obvious that mankind is not capable of making more than a very minor contribution to the world-wide burden of nuclear materials even if all power were produced by nuclear plants and the wastes were scattered randomly over the oceans. Managing nuclear wastes is not a scientific issue, the solutions are well known. What is with these ignorant articles and letters claiming that there are no scientific and engineering solutions? Certainly the management of nuclear wastes is far more proven than Global Warming. Fair enough to say that there is no POLITICAL solution.


* Nuclear power plants, on net, eliminate radiation from the environment. A nuclear plant converts long half-life isotopes to short half-life isotopes. These short half-life isotopes are carefully shielded from the environment, and after they decay, there are fewer radioactive atoms in the earth's inventory than when the process started. People who do not like radiation should logically support plants that "burn" it up.


* It is an indisputable scientific fact that nuclear power plants produce electricity for less than the costs to make power from solar or wind plants. It is possible to build and operate nuclear power plants and produce power for $0.05 per kWh. It is currently done in many countries. Existing plants in the USA do it, and the power is available 24 hours a day. (Caveat - The cost structure for future plants depends on many factors, such as inflation and regulatory issues, just as with any technology.)


* All the hand waving and conspiracy theory paranoia cannot make alternative power affordable. It takes science and engineering to build things to fulfill their imaginations.


* Everyone wants cost-effective alternative power, and there is much progress in that direction. Wind, for example, will continue to make significant contributions in producing non-dispatchable power. However, materials costs, construction labor and scientific and engineering realities impact all methods of making power. Notice that the cost of windmills is no longer going down because of the same material and labor cost constraints impacting everything.


* Regardless of how the "greenies" massage the message, energy storage and transmission costs are the Achilles Heel of alternative power. The costs are massive to supply base loaded or intermediate loaded power. As an example, a solar facility can produce no more than the equivalent of 8 hours (typically 6) of full power a day if there is never a cloud or a killer sand storm. Thus, a 1000 MW solar plant must generate at least 3000 MW when the sun shines in order to store energy for the other 16 hours and deliver a constant 1000 MW.


At present, the only cost-effective way to store huge amounts of energy is pumped storage -- dam a river and pump the water uphill during the day. However, eliminating wild rivers is very expensive and hardly a "green" solution. Even if the solar collectors are free, the economics are not attractive. Steel, concrete, solar tracking systems, labor, land and energy storage systems are needed on a massive scale.


* "Greenie" power costs are computed using special "Greenie Math."


The main problem with "Greenie Math" is that it considers government subsidies as free money from the Tooth Fairy that does not negatively impact society. Here is a News Flash => Money thrown away on uneconomical projects could build schools, send the kids to college and eliminate poverty. Most "greenie" articles talk about only the subsidized cost of power, and it is usually impossible to extract the true cost from the information provided. Talk about deceptive!


* Nuclear has delivered big time in proportion to government money used to stimulate the technology over the years. For the various subsidies and research grants provided over the past 50 years, "greenie" power has been a bust on the basis of kWh produced per subsidy dollar spent. (Note: Sanity is needed in the nuclear debate, not more government money. Alternative power subsidization of prudent projects that show promise for economic viability should continue.)


Trash talking nuclear power is bizarre. Nuclear has delivered on its promise. France produces 80% of its electrical power from nuclear, and many other countries produce 30% or more. Even the USA manages 20%. France is the leading exporter of electrical power in the world and the only industrial nation that has control of its carbon footprint, and has done it economically.


Edward R. Dykes, P.E.
La Grange, Texas


California Exercises Legal Options - January 11, 2008


I am among the few that still supports the Bush administration, but I think they are falling short with this issue. Tougher policy is required and it needs to be directed to the source of the problem. That's the people who continue to buy large gas guzzling vehicles. If stiffer penalties were placed on people buy those vehicles than their motivation to buy them would change and that in turn would motivate the auto industry to produce a more fuel efficient fleet of vehicles. The auto industry certainly does not need a "patchwork of state rules" for the reasons stated in your article, but that's what we might end up with if the proper motivation is not directed at the source of the problem.


Keith D. Wilson
GE Infrastructure - Energy
Contractual Services Ops Manager


The Federal Agency that regulates Surface Coal Mining also requires States to have laws and regulations that conform to Federal standards. Their test is that State laws must be "no less stringent than" and their regulations "no less effective than" the Federal. They take the position that States always have the right to be more stringent than the Federal.


California has taken the stand that they have the right to be more stringent than the Federal, which would be in the mainstream of current State/Federal relations. I do not remember a historical case of the Federal requiring States to hold to a lower Federal standard since before the Civil War when Free States were not allowed to have laws that Slave States objected to.


Kimery C. Vories
Edwardsville, IL


I will not be surprised to see California prevail on this - the California Air Resources Board were really the first in the world to figure out "smog" and do something about it in the late 50's and early 60's and for years the auto makers had to make "49 state cars" and "California cars" with different emissions systems. Seems like the precedent was set long ago.


William S. Bulpitt, P.E.
Senior Research Engineer/Strategic Energy Institute
Georgia Institute of Technology


I find the statement below somewhat humorous but not representative of the true "will" of millions of people.


"[EPA officials] are ignoring the will of millions of people who want their government to take action in the fight against global warming," counters Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.


If the millions of people were really interested in reducing tailpipe emissions, why aren't they all driving econoboxes or "green" vehicle such as the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid? California could impact tailpipe emissions by simply imposing a stiff gasoline tax that made people more "willing" to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles or use mass-transit. Then again, these types of policies don't get you re-elected.


Greg Palovchik
Specialist, Distribution Planning
PCIO Sales Support
Nationwide Insurance

Copyright © 1996-2006 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.