際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

The Use of the Kyoto Protocol and its Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to

Download as PPT, PDF
Michael Stavy, Consulting Energy Economist
Michael Stavy, Consulting Energy Economist

My presentation at the 2008 Latin American Wind Energy Conference (LAWEC) November 5-7, Guadalajara, MX

1 of 68
Downloaded 42 times
The Use of the Kyoto Protocol and its Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to Help Finance Latin American Wind Plants Thurs., 6 Nov 08; 9:00-10:30am Guadalajara, MX
The Presenter Michael Stavy Consulting Energy Economist 432 N. Clark ST STE 204 Chicago, Il 60654 USA 312-832-1631 www.michaelstavy.com
Download Lecture Handouts Download lecture handout with details and footnotes Provide webpage, username and password at end of presentation
The Disclaimer While I prepared this presentation and I believe that it contains correct information, I make no warranty expressed or implied, nor do I assume any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information presented. Presentation 息 2008 Michael Stavy
The Global Problem
Increase in GHG emissions is causing an increase in the earths surface temperature Global warming is an observed scientific fact An increase in temperature will change life as usual (LAU)
Life as Usual Parc Montsouris, Paris 14 th
A European Coal Plant Life as Usual will not continue
Solutions to Global Warming
Suffer Adjustment Mitigation The Protocol is an attempt at mitigation Windpower is a mitigating technology Protocol mitigating Galbraithian technostructure
The Kyoto Protocol
The Carbon Unit Protocol measures GHG in metric tons (t m ) of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), the major GHG. Other GHG emissions (i.e. CH 4 , N 2 O, HFC, PFC, SF 6 ) are standardized into t m -CO 2 by their global warming potential (GWP).
The Carbon Unit Main GHG from burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil) to generate electricity is CO 2 A ssigned Carbon Emission A llowance U nit (AAU) AAU = 1 t-CO 2 AAU only issued by UNFCC Secretariat
Protocol Basics Tries to change the human economy so that it will produce the required output with less carbon A treaty among sovereign nations UNFCC Secretariat administers Protocol for signatory nations Protocol only applies to signatory nations and their citizens
Protocol Basics All Latin American (LA) countries signatories U S A not a signatory Annex I countries are the developed countries Non-Annex I are the developing countries All LA countries are non-Annex I
Protocol Basics Only certain Annex I countries (Annex B countries) have emission caps (ceiling on emissions) during the first commitment period Only citizens of signatory countries can trade Protocol carbon units No matter what the Annex B domestic architecture, Protocol trading is sovereign government to sovereign government
Protocol Cap Maximum t-CO 2 /yr a country allowed is its yearly cap Base Year 1990-t 0 Emissions measured from base year First Commitment Period 2008-2012 Period by which Annex B countries must reduce their carbon emissions by, on average, 5.2% from t 0
Protocol Cap Protocol allows countries next to each other to cap emissions under a joint emissions bubble European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is one such bubble
Kyoto Emission Control Architectures Three major architectures are 1. Cap and command-RPS 2. Cap and trade-the EU ETS 3. Carbon tax
Clean Development Mechanism-CDM Designed to help developing countries (non-Annex I) emit less carbon during first Commitment Period Joint Implementation (JI) mechanism is a parallel program for Annex I countries that are not in Annex B. Not relevant to LA CDM projects only venued in non-Annex I countries All LA counties can have CDM projects
Clean Development Mechanism-CDM CDM projects generate C ertificated E mission R eduction allowances (CER) from their avoided carbon emissions Administered by UN CDM Board Each LA country must have own National Authority (NA) to regulate domestic CDM program and to certify its domestic CER to UN CDM Executive Board CDM projects must meet the additionality principal
Clean Development Mechanism-CDM Additionality principal requires CDM projects have carbon reductions that would not take place without CER revenue LA wind plants that would have been built without the CER revenue are not eligible for CDM status
Clean Development Mechanism-CDM LA wind plants usually earn CER from their avoided carbon emissions compared to carbon content of its venued countys electric grid Many LA electric grids (Mexico, Brazil, Costa Rico, etc) hydro powered resulting in a low carbon content for grid electricity Other emission bases can be used
Clean Development Mechanism-CDM CDM wind projects helped financially by selling the CER generated CER are bought by an Annex B country in order for Annex B country to be in compliance with its Protocol cap
Clean Development Mechanism-CDM Most CER are sold in EU ETS carbon market Another large buyer is the Governmen t of Japan There is not a significant Japanese C & T market! There is no US market for CER
EU ETS Specifics Study EU ETS because it is the major CER market Uses the cap and trade protocol emissions control architecture Under EU ETS bubble, the AAU is called Eu ropean Carbon Emission A llowance (EUA)
Countries Under the ETS Bubble
EU ETS Specifics EU Directorate administers the EU ETS EU Directorate receives AAU from the UNFCC Secretariat EU Directorate distributes EUA to EU ETS countries
EU ETS Specifics Each EU ETS country decided which industrial sectors are capped during first commitment period We will only look at EU ETS power carbon cap
EU Cap and Command-C & C Each EU fossil power plant given cap-maximum t-CO 2 /yr that it can emit Based on historical emissions Plant penalized if actual t-CO 2 /yr > cap Not rewarded if actual t-CO 2 /yr < cap Wind plants emit 0 t-CO 2 /yr
EU Cap and Command-C & C Used for HFC emissions caps under the Montr辿al Protocol US Montr辿al signatory LA countries Montr辿al Protocol signatories Table # 1 below shows C & C emissions data for 3 hypothetical EU fossil power plants
EU Cap and Command-C & C Fossil power plant 1 is even with cap Plant 2 is below its cap Plant 3 is above its cap US state Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) are C & C architectures
油
EU Cap and Trade-C & T Basis for C & T is the command from C & C Used by EU ETS Voluntary emissions schemes do no significantly reduce C-emissions --not good for selling LA wind CER Each EU power plant is given cap (max t-CO 2 /yr that it can emit)
EU Cap and Trade-C & T Each plant must have an EUA for each t-CO 2 /yr it emits up to its cap Assigned cap offset with EUA or, perhaps, by LA wind CER Plants get EUA from market purchase, government auction or government distribution
EU Cap and Trade-C & T Government auctions greatly increase EUA cost-very good for LA wind CER Auctions very good for planet Earth Table # 2 shows C & T emissions data for same 3 EU fossil power plants Plant 1 is even on EUA Plant 2 is long EUA Plant 3 is short EUA
EU Cap and Trade-C & T Since plant 2 has < efficiency than plant 3, economy better ( in general equilibrium ) if allowing EUA trading between plants 2 & 3 C & T helps reduce EU fossil electricitys cost advantage by carbon cost of the fossil electricity ( , MX$ or US$ per MWh)
油
Carbon Cost of Fossil Electricity In EU C & T, the carbon content (t-CO 2 /MWh) of fossil electricity must offset with EUA, or LA Wind CER Carbon cost of fossil electricity depends on its carbon content and the cost of a EUA (CER) Higher the EUA price, the greater the carbon cost, the better it is for LA wind CER
Carbon Cost of Fossil Electricity Table # 3 below shows carbon cost for EU coal, natural gas and wind electricity Carbon cost of wind is given as a comparison Carbon content of fossil electricity from my 2004 Global Wind Power Conference Paper
油
Cost of EUA (CER) UE ETS has no public EUA (CER) markets with transparent prices for long-term contracts or for current (spot) trades EUA (CER) prices and volumes not in public domain European Climate Exchange (ECX) only provides public access to transparent prices for EUA (CER) futures and options
Cost of EUA (CER) ECX EUA/CER Dec 08 futures 30 Sept 08 month-end settlement prices used as proxy EUA/CER prices EUA settlement price: 22.35 CER settlement price: 18.45 EUA-CER spread: 3.90 or 17.4%
Cost of EUA (CER) 1 = MX$ 15.70046 (30 Sept 08) 1 = US$ 1.4445 ( 30 Sept 08) Converted proxy EUA (CER) prices into proxy EUA (CER) MX$ and US$ prices
EU ETS Reduces Fossil Electricity's Cost Advantage Table # 5 below shows the amount by which the after carbon cost of EU fossil electricity is less (more) than EU wind electricity Cost of generation is the levelized cost of generation; not the wholesale price (discussed below) Cost of carbon is from Table # 3 above
EU ETS Reduces Fossil Electricity's Cost Advantage Total is the sum of the cost of generation and the cost of carbon Fossil < wind is amount that fossil electricity total cost is less (more) than total cost of wind electricity Hydro column without data requires further study
油
Cost of Generating Electricity No public domain data (IEA, EIA) on the actual cost of generating EU, MX and US fossil, wind and hydro electricity Cost of generating electricity not transparent Without transparent costs, the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) does not hold in these wholesale electric markets
Cost of Generating Electricity US, MX and EU costs of generation are converted from proxy values published a January, 2008 Wind Power Monthly (WPM) article and graphs Used WPM 8% cost of capital values Readers can use their own values
Reliable Cost Data
Reliable Cost Data
Cost of Generating Electricity Appendix Table #2 below estimates the proxy MX$ and US$ cost of generating coal, natural gas and wind electricity using the WPM prices Used average daily /MX$ and /US$ exchange rate for the 366 day period 1 Oct 07 -> 30 Sept 08
Cost of Generating Electricity 1 = MX$ 15.9472 (366 day average) 1 = US$ 1.50393 ( 366 day average)
油
CDM Reduces LA Grid Electricity's Cost Advantage CER income that LA CDM wind plant receives decreases the cost of wind Reduces LA grid electricitys cost advantage Table # 6 below shows the amount by which after CER income of LA CDM wind electricity is more (less) than LA grid electricity
CDM Reduces LA Grid Electricity's Cost Advantage Cost of generation is from Appendix Table # 2 above CER cost is from 際際滷 # 43 above Total is the cost of generation minus the CER income LA Grid < wind is the amount total cost of LA grid electricity less (more) than the cost of CDM wind electricity
油
Advantages of CDM to Finance LA Wind Plants CER revenue EU ETS, on a county by county basis, can accept CER to cover a % of their carbon cap EU ETS will only meet its 2008-12 emissions cap with CDM & JI link There is an EU ETS market for CER EU ETS will reduce GHG 20% by 2020
Advantages of CDM to Finance LA Wind Plants Present value (PV) of a stream of future LA CDM CER can be used to directly finance the construction of a CDM wind plant
Difficulties Using CDM to Finance LA Wind Plants EU ETS, on a county by county basis, can restrict the % of their cap that can be covered with CER Market price for CER are 3.90 below the cost of EUA. 17.4% EUA-CER spread Conceptual integrity of certain CER has been suggested, increasing the risk to CER holders (and writers) and reducing CER market value
Difficulties Using CDM to Finance LA Wind Plants Other CDM projects that have conceptual integrity do not use wind CDM NO X reduction projects reduce carbon emissions but do not use wind CER are created over time as CDM wind electricity is generated
Difficulties Using CDM to Finance LA Wind Plants Writer of PV of a CER revenue stream must have sufficient capital to cover any shortage of CER caused by the usual problems (lack of wind, gearbox failures, cracked blades, etc) at a LA CDM wind plant
EU ETS Conclusions that apply to Financing LA CDM Wind Plants By itself, EU ETS only one driver in lowering the cost spread between EU fossil and wind electricity Specific EU Protocol actions against global warming more significant drivers Wind feed-in-tariffs in Germany, Spain, etc., very effective in financing EU wind plants
EU ETS Conclusions that apply to Financing LA CDM Wind Plants Worlds first wind feed-in-tariff was in California U S A under the first Governor Jerry Brown EU transmission and siting regulations supported by EU Green Parties have allowed EU ETS wind to develop
LA Government Policies to Help CDM Wind During Kyoto-II LA feed-in-tariffs Regulations that require wind access to the LA grids Smart grids that store wind in hydro Kyoto-II starts to list certain LA countries in Annex B Additionality principal more clearly defined
More LAU-Indiana Dunes U S A US ladybug wishes you good luck!
Download Lecture Points Handout My website: www.michaelstavy.com User Name: Mexico2008 Password: Jalisco1531 Must use capital M & J
My Contact Information www.michaelstavy.com [email_address] 312-832-1631 432 N Clark ST STE 204, Chicago, IL 60654 USA 06 Nov 08

More Related Content

The Use of the Kyoto Protocol and its Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to

  • 1. The Use of the Kyoto Protocol and its Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to Help Finance Latin American Wind Plants Thurs., 6 Nov 08; 9:00-10:30am Guadalajara, MX
  • 2. The Presenter Michael Stavy Consulting Energy Economist 432 N. Clark ST STE 204 Chicago, Il 60654 USA 312-832-1631 www.michaelstavy.com
  • 3. Download Lecture Handouts Download lecture handout with details and footnotes Provide webpage, username and password at end of presentation
  • 4. The Disclaimer While I prepared this presentation and I believe that it contains correct information, I make no warranty expressed or implied, nor do I assume any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information presented. Presentation 息 2008 Michael Stavy
  • 6. Increase in GHG emissions is causing an increase in the earths surface temperature Global warming is an observed scientific fact An increase in temperature will change life as usual (LAU)
  • 7. Life as Usual Parc Montsouris, Paris 14 th
  • 8. A European Coal Plant Life as Usual will not continue
  • 10. Suffer Adjustment Mitigation The Protocol is an attempt at mitigation Windpower is a mitigating technology Protocol mitigating Galbraithian technostructure
  • 12. The Carbon Unit Protocol measures GHG in metric tons (t m ) of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), the major GHG. Other GHG emissions (i.e. CH 4 , N 2 O, HFC, PFC, SF 6 ) are standardized into t m -CO 2 by their global warming potential (GWP).
  • 13. The Carbon Unit Main GHG from burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil) to generate electricity is CO 2 A ssigned Carbon Emission A llowance U nit (AAU) AAU = 1 t-CO 2 AAU only issued by UNFCC Secretariat
  • 14. Protocol Basics Tries to change the human economy so that it will produce the required output with less carbon A treaty among sovereign nations UNFCC Secretariat administers Protocol for signatory nations Protocol only applies to signatory nations and their citizens
  • 15. Protocol Basics All Latin American (LA) countries signatories U S A not a signatory Annex I countries are the developed countries Non-Annex I are the developing countries All LA countries are non-Annex I
  • 16. Protocol Basics Only certain Annex I countries (Annex B countries) have emission caps (ceiling on emissions) during the first commitment period Only citizens of signatory countries can trade Protocol carbon units No matter what the Annex B domestic architecture, Protocol trading is sovereign government to sovereign government
  • 17. Protocol Cap Maximum t-CO 2 /yr a country allowed is its yearly cap Base Year 1990-t 0 Emissions measured from base year First Commitment Period 2008-2012 Period by which Annex B countries must reduce their carbon emissions by, on average, 5.2% from t 0
  • 18. Protocol Cap Protocol allows countries next to each other to cap emissions under a joint emissions bubble European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is one such bubble
  • 19. Kyoto Emission Control Architectures Three major architectures are 1. Cap and command-RPS 2. Cap and trade-the EU ETS 3. Carbon tax
  • 20. Clean Development Mechanism-CDM Designed to help developing countries (non-Annex I) emit less carbon during first Commitment Period Joint Implementation (JI) mechanism is a parallel program for Annex I countries that are not in Annex B. Not relevant to LA CDM projects only venued in non-Annex I countries All LA counties can have CDM projects
  • 21. Clean Development Mechanism-CDM CDM projects generate C ertificated E mission R eduction allowances (CER) from their avoided carbon emissions Administered by UN CDM Board Each LA country must have own National Authority (NA) to regulate domestic CDM program and to certify its domestic CER to UN CDM Executive Board CDM projects must meet the additionality principal
  • 22. Clean Development Mechanism-CDM Additionality principal requires CDM projects have carbon reductions that would not take place without CER revenue LA wind plants that would have been built without the CER revenue are not eligible for CDM status
  • 23. Clean Development Mechanism-CDM LA wind plants usually earn CER from their avoided carbon emissions compared to carbon content of its venued countys electric grid Many LA electric grids (Mexico, Brazil, Costa Rico, etc) hydro powered resulting in a low carbon content for grid electricity Other emission bases can be used
  • 24. Clean Development Mechanism-CDM CDM wind projects helped financially by selling the CER generated CER are bought by an Annex B country in order for Annex B country to be in compliance with its Protocol cap
  • 25. Clean Development Mechanism-CDM Most CER are sold in EU ETS carbon market Another large buyer is the Governmen t of Japan There is not a significant Japanese C & T market! There is no US market for CER
  • 26. EU ETS Specifics Study EU ETS because it is the major CER market Uses the cap and trade protocol emissions control architecture Under EU ETS bubble, the AAU is called Eu ropean Carbon Emission A llowance (EUA)
  • 27. Countries Under the ETS Bubble
  • 28. EU ETS Specifics EU Directorate administers the EU ETS EU Directorate receives AAU from the UNFCC Secretariat EU Directorate distributes EUA to EU ETS countries
  • 29. EU ETS Specifics Each EU ETS country decided which industrial sectors are capped during first commitment period We will only look at EU ETS power carbon cap
  • 30. EU Cap and Command-C & C Each EU fossil power plant given cap-maximum t-CO 2 /yr that it can emit Based on historical emissions Plant penalized if actual t-CO 2 /yr > cap Not rewarded if actual t-CO 2 /yr < cap Wind plants emit 0 t-CO 2 /yr
  • 31. EU Cap and Command-C & C Used for HFC emissions caps under the Montr辿al Protocol US Montr辿al signatory LA countries Montr辿al Protocol signatories Table # 1 below shows C & C emissions data for 3 hypothetical EU fossil power plants
  • 32. EU Cap and Command-C & C Fossil power plant 1 is even with cap Plant 2 is below its cap Plant 3 is above its cap US state Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) are C & C architectures
  • 33. 油
  • 34. EU Cap and Trade-C & T Basis for C & T is the command from C & C Used by EU ETS Voluntary emissions schemes do no significantly reduce C-emissions --not good for selling LA wind CER Each EU power plant is given cap (max t-CO 2 /yr that it can emit)
  • 35. EU Cap and Trade-C & T Each plant must have an EUA for each t-CO 2 /yr it emits up to its cap Assigned cap offset with EUA or, perhaps, by LA wind CER Plants get EUA from market purchase, government auction or government distribution
  • 36. EU Cap and Trade-C & T Government auctions greatly increase EUA cost-very good for LA wind CER Auctions very good for planet Earth Table # 2 shows C & T emissions data for same 3 EU fossil power plants Plant 1 is even on EUA Plant 2 is long EUA Plant 3 is short EUA
  • 37. EU Cap and Trade-C & T Since plant 2 has < efficiency than plant 3, economy better ( in general equilibrium ) if allowing EUA trading between plants 2 & 3 C & T helps reduce EU fossil electricitys cost advantage by carbon cost of the fossil electricity ( , MX$ or US$ per MWh)
  • 38. 油
  • 39. Carbon Cost of Fossil Electricity In EU C & T, the carbon content (t-CO 2 /MWh) of fossil electricity must offset with EUA, or LA Wind CER Carbon cost of fossil electricity depends on its carbon content and the cost of a EUA (CER) Higher the EUA price, the greater the carbon cost, the better it is for LA wind CER
  • 40. Carbon Cost of Fossil Electricity Table # 3 below shows carbon cost for EU coal, natural gas and wind electricity Carbon cost of wind is given as a comparison Carbon content of fossil electricity from my 2004 Global Wind Power Conference Paper
  • 41. 油
  • 42. Cost of EUA (CER) UE ETS has no public EUA (CER) markets with transparent prices for long-term contracts or for current (spot) trades EUA (CER) prices and volumes not in public domain European Climate Exchange (ECX) only provides public access to transparent prices for EUA (CER) futures and options
  • 43. Cost of EUA (CER) ECX EUA/CER Dec 08 futures 30 Sept 08 month-end settlement prices used as proxy EUA/CER prices EUA settlement price: 22.35 CER settlement price: 18.45 EUA-CER spread: 3.90 or 17.4%
  • 44. Cost of EUA (CER) 1 = MX$ 15.70046 (30 Sept 08) 1 = US$ 1.4445 ( 30 Sept 08) Converted proxy EUA (CER) prices into proxy EUA (CER) MX$ and US$ prices
  • 45. EU ETS Reduces Fossil Electricity's Cost Advantage Table # 5 below shows the amount by which the after carbon cost of EU fossil electricity is less (more) than EU wind electricity Cost of generation is the levelized cost of generation; not the wholesale price (discussed below) Cost of carbon is from Table # 3 above
  • 46. EU ETS Reduces Fossil Electricity's Cost Advantage Total is the sum of the cost of generation and the cost of carbon Fossil < wind is amount that fossil electricity total cost is less (more) than total cost of wind electricity Hydro column without data requires further study
  • 47. 油
  • 48. Cost of Generating Electricity No public domain data (IEA, EIA) on the actual cost of generating EU, MX and US fossil, wind and hydro electricity Cost of generating electricity not transparent Without transparent costs, the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) does not hold in these wholesale electric markets
  • 49. Cost of Generating Electricity US, MX and EU costs of generation are converted from proxy values published a January, 2008 Wind Power Monthly (WPM) article and graphs Used WPM 8% cost of capital values Readers can use their own values
  • 52. Cost of Generating Electricity Appendix Table #2 below estimates the proxy MX$ and US$ cost of generating coal, natural gas and wind electricity using the WPM prices Used average daily /MX$ and /US$ exchange rate for the 366 day period 1 Oct 07 -> 30 Sept 08
  • 53. Cost of Generating Electricity 1 = MX$ 15.9472 (366 day average) 1 = US$ 1.50393 ( 366 day average)
  • 54. 油
  • 55. CDM Reduces LA Grid Electricity's Cost Advantage CER income that LA CDM wind plant receives decreases the cost of wind Reduces LA grid electricitys cost advantage Table # 6 below shows the amount by which after CER income of LA CDM wind electricity is more (less) than LA grid electricity
  • 56. CDM Reduces LA Grid Electricity's Cost Advantage Cost of generation is from Appendix Table # 2 above CER cost is from 際際滷 # 43 above Total is the cost of generation minus the CER income LA Grid < wind is the amount total cost of LA grid electricity less (more) than the cost of CDM wind electricity
  • 57. 油
  • 58. Advantages of CDM to Finance LA Wind Plants CER revenue EU ETS, on a county by county basis, can accept CER to cover a % of their carbon cap EU ETS will only meet its 2008-12 emissions cap with CDM & JI link There is an EU ETS market for CER EU ETS will reduce GHG 20% by 2020
  • 59. Advantages of CDM to Finance LA Wind Plants Present value (PV) of a stream of future LA CDM CER can be used to directly finance the construction of a CDM wind plant
  • 60. Difficulties Using CDM to Finance LA Wind Plants EU ETS, on a county by county basis, can restrict the % of their cap that can be covered with CER Market price for CER are 3.90 below the cost of EUA. 17.4% EUA-CER spread Conceptual integrity of certain CER has been suggested, increasing the risk to CER holders (and writers) and reducing CER market value
  • 61. Difficulties Using CDM to Finance LA Wind Plants Other CDM projects that have conceptual integrity do not use wind CDM NO X reduction projects reduce carbon emissions but do not use wind CER are created over time as CDM wind electricity is generated
  • 62. Difficulties Using CDM to Finance LA Wind Plants Writer of PV of a CER revenue stream must have sufficient capital to cover any shortage of CER caused by the usual problems (lack of wind, gearbox failures, cracked blades, etc) at a LA CDM wind plant
  • 63. EU ETS Conclusions that apply to Financing LA CDM Wind Plants By itself, EU ETS only one driver in lowering the cost spread between EU fossil and wind electricity Specific EU Protocol actions against global warming more significant drivers Wind feed-in-tariffs in Germany, Spain, etc., very effective in financing EU wind plants
  • 64. EU ETS Conclusions that apply to Financing LA CDM Wind Plants Worlds first wind feed-in-tariff was in California U S A under the first Governor Jerry Brown EU transmission and siting regulations supported by EU Green Parties have allowed EU ETS wind to develop
  • 65. LA Government Policies to Help CDM Wind During Kyoto-II LA feed-in-tariffs Regulations that require wind access to the LA grids Smart grids that store wind in hydro Kyoto-II starts to list certain LA countries in Annex B Additionality principal more clearly defined
  • 66. More LAU-Indiana Dunes U S A US ladybug wishes you good luck!
  • 67. Download Lecture Points Handout My website: www.michaelstavy.com User Name: Mexico2008 Password: Jalisco1531 Must use capital M & J
  • 68. My Contact Information www.michaelstavy.com [email_address] 312-832-1631 432 N Clark ST STE 204, Chicago, IL 60654 USA 06 Nov 08