HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » Solar Stks Rally; Citi An...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue May 1, 2012, 09:40 AM

Solar Stks Rally; Citi Analyst Calls Bottom

Solar stocks are headed higher Tuesday morning after Citigroup analyst Timothy Arcuri this morning asserted that there are signs that the beleaguered sector is nearing a bottom. He raised his rating on Sunpower to Buy from Hold; for Yingli Green Energy he goes to Buy from Sell. Arcuri maintains his Buy ratings on Trina, MEMC Electronic Materials and Advanced Energy Industries.

“Our field work indicates product sell-through – particularly in Europe – has increased significantly in the past 1-2 weeks and utilization rates at Tier 1/2 cell/module producers have begun to spike higher,” Arcuri writes in a research note. “This indicates a clearing of inventory and suggests Q2 should ultimately represent a cyclical bottom in margins at cell/module producers. This is being driven in part by pull-ins ahead of mid-year feed-in tariff cuts in 6 European countries; typically, this might result in a falloff in demand for Q3 but this time we see other markets with demand elasticity that can more than offset any Q3 European softness. These include China, India, US, Japan (new FiT in July is among the highest in the world) and many other smaller countries where free market economics, rather than FiTs, are driving demand elasticity.”

Arcuri adds that while “headline” cell and module supply will continue to far outstrip demand, he contends there is only about 15 GW a year of integrated capacity to turn polysilicon into solar modules. He contends that with demand likely to grow from 4 GW in Q1 to as much as 8 GW in Q3, demand should start to outstrip integrated supply. “This should not only provide pricing stability, but also allow major integrated producers to realize ~20%+ cash margins – enough of a catalyst for stocks in light of such negative sentiment,” he writes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/05/01/solar-stks-rally-citi-analyst-calls-bottom-ups-spwr-yge/?partner=yahootix

36 replies, 4516 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Solar Stks Rally; Citi Analyst Calls Bottom (Original post)
FBaggins May 2012 OP
RobertEarl May 2012 #1
FBaggins May 2012 #2
RobertEarl May 2012 #3
FBaggins May 2012 #4
RobertEarl May 2012 #6
FBaggins May 2012 #8
RobertEarl May 2012 #9
FBaggins May 2012 #10
RobertEarl May 2012 #11
FBaggins May 2012 #12
RobertEarl May 2012 #13
FBaggins May 2012 #14
RobertEarl May 2012 #15
NickB79 May 2012 #16
FBaggins May 2012 #17
RobertEarl May 2012 #18
FBaggins May 2012 #19
RobertEarl May 2012 #20
FBaggins May 2012 #21
NickB79 May 2012 #22
RobertEarl May 2012 #23
kristopher May 2012 #24
FBaggins May 2012 #25
RobertEarl May 2012 #27
FBaggins May 2012 #29
RobertEarl May 2012 #30
FBaggins May 2012 #32
kristopher May 2012 #33
FBaggins May 2012 #34
NickB79 May 2012 #35
kristopher May 2012 #36
kristopher May 2012 #28
RobertEarl May 2012 #31
RobertEarl May 2012 #26
kristopher May 2012 #5
RobertEarl May 2012 #7

Response to FBaggins (Original post)

Tue May 1, 2012, 10:19 AM

1. Yep

Big Oil and Big Nukes shot their wad against Big Solar and Big Solar has won.

A little too late, what with Fukushima and The Gulf of BP, and all that, but still it is nice to see the Right Thing finally breakthrough, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #1)

Tue May 1, 2012, 10:40 AM

2. Big solar has won?

What an interesting perspective on the concept of "winning".

"Big oil" normally refers to the the companies that extract and sell oil and refined products... so "big solar" presumably refers to the companies that produce and sell solar panels. Since many have gone out of business and most of the rest of seen dramatic collapses in profitability and stock price... to what extent have they "won"?

Take, for instance, SPWR (boosted to a "buy" by this analyst). Certainly... a 12% jump to $6.25 a share is a really nice day for any investor... but let's not forget that it was at almost $135/shr just a few short years ago. YGE is similarly down 90% even after this morning's 9% climb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #2)

Tue May 1, 2012, 11:13 AM

3. I hear you

You think Big Solar has been beaten by Big Oil and Big Coal and Big Nukes.

I hear you. So does everyone else. And if we agreed with you we would all be wrong.

Thing is that Big Solar, after all the billions of dollars spent trying to kill it - along with the reaganites - is alive and about to take over. Win. Become the biggest energy converter ever. Remember "Too cheap to meter"? That's the sun, son.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #3)

Tue May 1, 2012, 11:23 AM

4. All the billions trying to kill it?

Buddy... we're spending tens of billions of dollars trying to birth it... not kill it.

There's just no use in pretending that all is bright and sunny when the industry is going through a period of painful consolidation.

There's certainly no point in pretending it's "about to take over". Solar can be a BIG player in the markets where it makes sense, but those markets are comparatively few.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #4)

Tue May 1, 2012, 11:30 AM

6. Every rooftop is "few"??

Heck, I'd be willing to bet that the pumps that end up keeping Spent Fuel Pools full of circulating water for the next 100 years are all supplied with energy from Big Solar. Yep, every existing nuke plant will end up with solar PVs covering the roof. And walls. How else are they going to be able to afford to keep the pumps running? They can barely even afford to properly decommission the damn nuclear waste dumps.

Solar power is gonna save us from the nukes, or nothing will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #6)

Tue May 1, 2012, 11:34 AM

8. Lol.

Friend... if you think that solar PV will ever make sense on "every rooftop", you've been drinking too much coolaid.

I'd be willing to bet that the pumps that end up keeping Spent Fuel Pools full of circulating water for the next 100 years

Still stuck on that error?

Care to point to the pumps for circulating water on this image?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #8)

Tue May 1, 2012, 12:30 PM

9. Image in this

If Fukushima had a solar array as a back up system, they could have kept the place from blowing up. Instead it relied on the grid. The grid failed and the place blew sky high.

Why you are stuck on something that is so expensive the next seven generations will be paying for makes no damn sense whatsoever.

All you need to do is go out and face the Sun, son. That sun is Big Solar and if it ain't too late, it will be mankind's savior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #9)

Tue May 1, 2012, 12:45 PM

10. Lovely imagination you have.

You really think the solar panels would have been clear of the tsunami? That you can install enough on the roof of a reactor to run the coolant pumps?

And how, precisely, would Tepco have convinced the sun to stay up all night?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #10)

Tue May 1, 2012, 12:56 PM

11. You have no imagination?

No imagination is what lead to is Fukushima blowing up. That is a reality we are now faced with.

Yes, they could, and all plants should now have solar backup systems in place at NPPs in enough quantity and battery supply to keep them from blowing up when the grid fails. It is called redundancy.

Not only that, as long as the grid stays up, the solar panels would be supplying electricity "Too cheap to meter" right to your house.

But, it may be a little to late to do the right thing now. But we can imagine that is not too late, eh? I know you do imagine that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #11)

Tue May 1, 2012, 01:39 PM

12. You're kidding, right?

You recognize that the most reliable power possible is needed in that situation and you instead propose the power source that is just about the least reliable? And batteries (which they already use) are supposed to make up the difference? You imagine solar panel systems that can survive earthquake/tsunami events that can take out a nuclear plant?

Why not take NPPs out of the conversation and use hospitals as an example. I'm sure that there are some hospitals that have solar panels, but do imagine that any of them use solar power instead of diesel backup generators?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #12)

Tue May 1, 2012, 01:59 PM

13. Geeez

You are hard headed. Redundant systems are needed, obviously for nuke plants. Why are you against doing anything that would stop the next Fukushima? Drag your head up from the nuke nightmare and see the light.

Why you continue on this "we did all we could do" behavior when it comes to nukes, is beyond me. Maybe you never felt the power of Big Solar?

We are all now quite aware of the power nukes possess to bring us closer and closer to extinction, whereas without the sun we'd done be gone. The sun has carried you this far, why turn against it? You are only defeating yourself.

Solar, held down and beaten up by Big Oil, Coal and Nukes, is rising up and will save us from the nukers, if it ain't too late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #13)

Tue May 1, 2012, 02:15 PM

14. Lol... try a little reading comprehension.

I never said I was a "against doing anything that would stop the next Fukushima"...

... I simply laughed at the ridiculous notion that you think you proposed something that would have stopped this one.

Propose moving generators (or adding them) well above where a tsunami could strike. Propose putting them in water-tight structures. Propose not building nuclear plants in tsunami-prone areas. Propose a backup turbine options that allows one reactor to provide backup power for others. Propose increasing battery supplies tenfold. Propose any number of further-redundant backup options... all fine.

But let's not pretend that "if they had only had solar panels at Fukushima... the reactors would have been saved!" That's just nonsense.

The tsunami hit just a couple hours before sundown. It's unlikely that a solar power system would have survived the earthquake/tsunami in the first place, but if it had... solar PV systems still need to deal with what we call "night".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #14)

Tue May 1, 2012, 02:22 PM

15. damn

We did propose all that usual stuff and it all was ignored by the nukers.

And what happens when the Big Solar storm hits and fries the grid? I see solar as the only way to keep the pumps running for any length of time.

You have a better idea for when the grid goes down for a year as expected?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #15)

Tue May 1, 2012, 02:32 PM

16. You think solar power systems are immune to solar storms?

Think again. They would be hard hit, just like everything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #15)

Tue May 1, 2012, 02:43 PM

17. Were you under the impression that the grid becomes safe...

...if the power comes from the sun and the solar storm comes from the same place?

As if the sun god blesses any power that (s)he provides and protects it from his/her wrath?

You have a better idea for when the grid goes down for a year as expected?

Yeah... the better idea is to do more than accept internet conspiracy theories and actually learn a thing or two about science. There is no "expected" grid loss for a year. And that isn't because people are sticking their heads in the sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #17)

Tue May 1, 2012, 03:26 PM

18. Here's ya some internet

http://truth-out.org/news/item/7301-400-chernobyls-solar-flares-electromagnetic-pulses-and-nuclear-armageddon

Read it an weep. The grid could be down for a long, long time, and NPPs would all go to hell. I am sure I showed this link to you before.

NPPs are Time Bombs just waiting to blow like Fukushima. Solar is the only way to safely keep NPPs from blowing up. Massive solar arrays feeding into batteries that will last, is the last barrier to complete meltdowns. And as all the nuke plants will soon be shutdown, yet will need power for years and years, solar fits the bill nicely. It is just a matter of Time. There is not other way out of this nuke mess we are in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #18)

Tue May 1, 2012, 04:00 PM

19. Thanks for proving my point.

If that's your idea of a "read it and weep" source... you'll fall for just about anything (except the truth of course).

You might even sink so far that you would buy ridiculous notions like "spent fuel rods burn and explode when exposed to air" or that they need to be kept under water for 10-100 years.

I am sure I showed this link to you before.

And you were corrected before... but were incapable of accepting it.

NPPs are Time Bombs just waiting to blow like Fukushima. Solar is the only way to safely keep NPPs from blowing up.

Ridiculously false statements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #19)

Tue May 1, 2012, 04:09 PM

20. heh

All that coming from a nuke supporter is already discounted.

I mean, just about anything you've ever written here has been shown to be utter bullshit. Fukushima has shown nuke support to be totally asinine. And when presented with the future of nukes you just ignore it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #20)

Tue May 1, 2012, 04:16 PM

21. Can you give a few examples?

Shouldn't be too hard since it's "just about anything I've ever written here".

Don't worry... I won't hold my breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #18)

Tue May 1, 2012, 04:17 PM

22. This says nothing about using solar to run back-up generators at NPP's

What it does say is that we should spend the money to electronically harden the critical components of our grid, and of NPP's, to withstand a solar flare event, and to stockpile one year's worth of diesel at every nuclear power plant.

I think you're a bit confused about what points you were trying to make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #22)

Tue May 1, 2012, 04:27 PM

23. I know that

Thanks for reading it. Maybe Baggins will eventually?

The Solar will save us is my invention. You have a better one, I am all ears. My idea is that we will convert all nukes to places where solar panels are installed.

It makes perfect sense. The grid is there for tie-in. The places are too dangerous for normal activity and there will be a great need for electricity at each of these locations for many, many years.

And we can do it all within a year. Might be too late but heck, they aren't gonna save the grid within that time frame anyway. It is a roll of the dice at this point. Might as well roll it on something that will last a good 20 years, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #23)

Tue May 1, 2012, 04:33 PM

24. Of course a solar array would work

Only a fool would deny that a properly designed solar system is one of the most reliable ways to go off grid; and you can't get much more off grid than a total failure of the system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #24)

Tue May 1, 2012, 04:39 PM

25. Then why don't you take a shot at the question?

Why don't hospitals use this "most reliable way to go off grid"?

How can you sit there any knowingly let him wallow in ignorance? You know very well that spent fuel doesn't need to be kept under water for a century... and you know it doesn't explode when exposed to air. You know that had solar panels been installed at Fukushima two years ago... not a thing would have changed about the events (except that they would have lost the solar panels too).

Yet you do nothing to help him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #25)

Tue May 1, 2012, 04:46 PM

27. Baggins, baggins, baggins

How long do we have to keep the lights on and keep protecting the nuclear waste? 100's of years, is the consensus. That's what I refer to. Sure, some that we have only needs 10 years, or five if we want to risk it, to control the heat from the spent rods. Why is it that you are so snitty about a few details?

Oh, hospitals, are not prone to blow up when the power drops. But remember Katrina and the hospitals there where people died after the generators dropped? Solar could have saved that situation from being so bad. Certainly the nukes were of NO help.

Think, Baggions, THINK!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #27)

Tue May 1, 2012, 05:10 PM

29. Please provide this "consensus" you speak of.

Nobody has said that the spent fuel pools will need power for "100s of years".

Why is it that you are so snitty about a few details?

"Details" like the difference between right and wrong? Oh, I don't know... maybe because they're important? Because some ignorant passer-by might drop in and actually believe that spent fuel explodes in air? Or that the spent fuel pools at Fukushima exploded? Or that one or more cores exploded and ejected parts of the core (as in Chernobyl)?

Oh, hospitals, are not prone to blow up when the power drops.

Ah... but that's not the only difference. If power is lost at a hospital, people actually die. Unlike the radiation from Fukushima that has yet to kill anyone.

But remember Katrina and the hospitals there where people died after the generators dropped? Solar could have saved that situation from being so bad.

You're seriously going to pebble that bs? You think solar panels on the roof would have survived at CAT5 hurricane and actually worked in severe overcast for days (plus those perky nights)? That flooded electrical systems work if their power comes from the sun rather than a diesel?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #29)

Tue May 1, 2012, 05:21 PM

30. Whoa, Dude

I am sorry to have pushed you over the edge here. But damn, son, you walked right up to it.

So I will back off and let you gather your senses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #30)

Tue May 1, 2012, 05:28 PM

32. Lol... what a shocker.

How many times is it now that you've made a definitive statement about reality only to disapear when called to back it up? If there's really a "consensus" (outside of your imagination of course) that they'll need power for 100s of years, surely you could find one?

Say... you could come up with an interview of the folks at Chernobyl who must have been pumping water there for decades now, right?

Yeah... we'll all pretend that you could have supported that BS... but just didn't want to.

Still that's a laugher that will stick. You see a category five hurricane killing people and think that solar power would have saved the day.

For the record, plenty of PV systems are designed to withstand lower-level hurricane-force winds... but nothing close to Katrina.. and that's before flying debris is thrown into the mix.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #32)

Tue May 1, 2012, 05:47 PM

33. Louisiana Solar Rebates and Incentives

Baggins wrote,
"Still that's a laugher that will stick. You see a category five hurricane killing people and think that solar power would have saved the day." :rofl"


Solar Rebate and Incentive Programs
Louisiana Rebates and Incentives Summary



These days you can’t talk about Louisiana without talking about at least some of the destruction it’s seen as a result of Hurricane Katrina or the more recent Deepwater Horizon oil spill. But within that destruction there is also hope, and a lot of that hope lies in solar power. To help encourage more homes and businesses to adopt renewable energy and to help protect this coastal state from experiencing more of the devastation wrought by the hurricanes of 2005, the state is offering rebates and other incentives to make its citizens more energy independent.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, solar became a primary power source, since the grid was down and getting adequate fuel to run diesel emergency generators was nearly impossible. Now, as part of the rebuilding effort groups like Brad Pitt’s Make It Right Foundation, Mikhail Gorbachev’s Green Cross International and neighborhood associations are rebuilding New Orleans homes with sustainability and solar in mind. Louisiana’s economy is largely a fossil fuel-based economy, but British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon fiasco in the summer of 2010 highlighted problems with continuing to rely on fossil fuels as an energy source.

Most of Louisiana gets more than 5 kilowatt hours of sunlight per square meter on a daily basis. That’s more than enough to justify a photovoltaic (PV) system, although the solar isn’t as rich as that hitting the Southwest. Still, Louisiana’s electric supply is dominated by natural gas power plants, which produce nearly one half of the state’s power. Coal-fired power plants produce another quarter of the state’s energy needs and two nuclear power plants provide an additional fifth of Louisiana’s energy needs. Per capita electricity use in the state is high. The state has hot, humid summers, residential use of air conditioners is high, and most homes use electric heaters in the winter.


http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-incentives-and-rebates/louisiana/

To quote Baggins again,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #33)

Tue May 1, 2012, 05:51 PM

34. Sorry... you're really going to run with that?

You're going to throw your lot in with the notion that solar panels on those hospitals in NOLA would not only have survived the hurricane/flooding, but would have provided reliable power to the hospital in the following days?

Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #33)

Tue May 1, 2012, 09:40 PM

35. I think you and Fbaggins are talking past each other here

Your link states that solar became a valuable way to generate power after Katrina, which is true. There are several blog posts about it, here for example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1127&pid=13684

However, I can't find anyone who's stated that solar panels survived in areas where the storm actually hit directly. All I find are people who used solar for energy in outlying areas that weren't hit hard by the storm, but still lost power due to the collapse of the local grid. That's what I got from reading what FBaggins has said so far: examples like New Orleans and Fukushima fail because these areas were directly hit by a major natural disaster that destroyed infrastructure, including existing solar panels and wind turbines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #35)

Tue May 1, 2012, 11:20 PM

36. There was significant press coverage that all the wind and most of the solar survived Fukushima.

In the areas where the towns were washed out to sea, of course, solar didn't fare any better than the houses, but all of the wind turbines on the coast were still up and running.

As for N.O. since there was virtually no renewable infrastructure in place it is disingenuous to say than none survived. You are both arguing against widely accepted and well understood knowledge and you are doing it based solely on a perverse desire to enhance the competitive position of nuclear power without regard for the validity of your arguments. It's not only preposterous, it is so preposterous that it is actually shameful.

In addition to the potential benefits for electric system planning and operations, DG can also be used to decrease the vulnerability of the electric system to threats from terrorist attacks, and other forms of potentially catastrophic disruptions, and to increase the resiliency of other critical infrastructure sectors as defined in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) issued by the Department of Homeland Security, such as telecommunications, chemicals, agriculture and food, and government facilities. There are many examples of customers who own and operate facilities in these sectors who are using DG to maintain operations when the grid is down during weather-related outages and regional blackouts.

THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATION AND RATE-RELATED ISSUES THAT MAY IMPEDE THEIR EXPANSION
February 2007
U.S. Department of Energy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #25)

Tue May 1, 2012, 04:51 PM

28. You and your constant stream of red herrings become very tiresome

These are two separate issues, unless you are claiming that all spent fuel in spent fuel pools has miraculously transported itself into dry cask storage and that all the fuel in the reactors will accomplish this act with the hypothesized extended shutdown of the national grid.

What is the magic mechanism that accomplished/accomplishes that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #28)

Tue May 1, 2012, 05:24 PM

31. I think he's losing it, Kris

The denial has drowned him from realizing just what he has written.
I am going to leave him be. I feel awful that he has gone over the edge.

"Why he's no fun, he fell right over."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #24)

Tue May 1, 2012, 04:40 PM

26. yep

We know that some here, not being very educated about such things, scoff at the idea that Solar could indeed save us from near certain doom and damnation.

But using the sun and some technology as a failsafe seems to me to be the most certain thing in an otherwise uncertain world.

Not only that, it is a damn good smack in the face to the nukers who deserve to be smacked thanks to their Fukushimas and Chernobyls ruining the world for all life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #1)

Tue May 1, 2012, 11:28 AM

5. Baggins is in denial...

As the economics of solar PV continue to improve steadily and dramatically, McKinsey analysts conclude that the yearly “economic potential” of solar PV deployment could reach 600-1,000 gigawatts (1 million megawatts) by 2020....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112713577

By yearly economic potential they mean the existing market where solar PV will be the cost preferred option without subsidies.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #5)

Tue May 1, 2012, 11:33 AM

7. He is in 'somewhere'

I'd sure hate to be where he is. As a bleeding heart liberal tree hugging environmentalist, I can't help but bleed a bit for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread