The EM network October 2010 Newsletter

Page 1 The EM Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com

The EM Network Newsletter October’2010

1

j{tà {tÑÑxÇxw Rj{tà {tÑÑxÇxw Rj{tà {tÑÑxÇxw Rj{tà {tÑÑxÇxw R

It’s been a while since I last put out an EM Network newsletter, 4 months in

fact. Since May there have seen very encouraging business news for the use of

the EM technology in the oil & gas market. Large contracts have been awarded,

and many oil companies are now back wanting to use EM data in their

exploration. Fingers crossed that the trek in the desert finally is over! ☺

Our network now counts more than 410 members, verifying the need and the

interest in sharing information and news on the EM technology. As usual, I have

a breakdown of the members into the following categories:

Oil companies 16%

Data acquisition companies (CSEM, MT, GravMag, etc.) 35%

Software & services 13%

Recruiting 5%

Others (universities, gov, etc) 31%

A good mix of people with an interest in developing and using the EM

technology!

Our new logo!

After some feedback from a few of you on our old logo, we ran a competition to

find a new one. From about 5 entries, the winner is here:

The new logo was submitted by Mr. Andrew Pethick. He is undertaking a PhD in

marine CSEM at the Curtin University of technology, Department of Exploration

Geophysics.

Our old logo...



Comment from Andrew: “I have a feeling that quite a few people have only

pictured marine EM as the ray diagram as seen in quite a few places. It is my

hope that people understand the behaviour of EM waves as being diffusive (in

the case of marine EM) rather than reflective.”

Flux lines of electromagnetic fields interacting with a hydrocarbon body. Image

courtesy of Andrew Pethick.

Call for articles for the next newsletter

The next newsletter is scheduled for January’11 and I would like to encourage

you to submit articles, reviews, questions, opinions, technology news etc.

Your feedback and input is important to make this Newsletter an interesting

read!

Please also participate in the various discussions on the network web site. We all

can learn from reading each other’s views on the EM technology. I appreciate

we are all busy but please take a few minutes to do this if you can.

Paul Hovdenak (Sponsor and group administrator)

[email protected]

Andrew Pethick wins the

Blueback iPod for designing the

new EM Network logo!



Table of Contents

1. Member Articles, Reviews, Questions, etc

1.1 Articles Page 4

1.2 Company news Page 7

1.3 Players in the EM market - update Page 9

1.4 Discussion from the web site Page 12

2. Events and technology updates Page 16

3. Career Networking Page 17

4. Request for input to newsletter No6 Page 18



1. Member Articles, Reviews & Questions

1.1 Articles

There are several articles that were candidates for inclusion in this newsletter,

but because of copyright laws, and size I decided to instead provide you with

some links.

The Geophysics magazine from SEG has for the September’10 issue a couple of

excellent articles. One by Michael Zhdanov and another one by Steven

Constable. Also worth mentioning, is a case study off the coast of Brazil by

WesternGeco. See below for the abstracts and where you can find the full

articles.

Geophysics, Volume 75

Electromagnetic Geophysics: Notes from the past and the road ahead

Author: Michael Zhdanov, University of Utah and TechnoImaging Salt Lake City.

Abstract:

During the last century, electrical geophysics has been transformed from a

simple resistivity method to a modern technology that uses complex data-

acquisition systems and high-performance computers for enhanced data

modeling and interpretation. Not only the methods and equipment have

changed but also our ideas about the geo-electrical models used for

interpretation have been modified tremendously. This paper describes the

evolution of the conceptual and technical foundations of EM methods. It

outlines a framework for further development, which should focus on multi-

transmitter and multi-receiver surveys, analogous to seismic data-acquisition

systems. Important potential topics of future research efforts are in the areas of

multidimensional modeling and inversion, including a new approach to the

formulation and understanding of EM fields based on flux and voltage

representation, which corresponds well to geophysical experiments involving

the measurement of voltage and flux of electric and magnetic fields. ©2010

Society of Exploration Geophysicists



Geophysics, Volume 75

Ten years of marine CSEM for hydrocarbon exploration

Author: Steven Constable , Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla

California.

Abstract:

Marine controlled-source electromagnetic (CSEM) surveying has been in

commercial use for pre-drill reservoir appraisal and hydrocarbon exploration for

10 years. Although a recent decrease has occurred in the number of surveys and

publications associated with this technique, the method has become firmly

established as an important geophysical tool in the offshore environment. This is

a consequence of two important aspects associated with the physics of the

method: First, it is sensitive to high electrical resistivity, which, although not an

unambiguous indicator of hydrocarbons, is an important property of

economically viable reservoirs. Second, although the method lacks the resolution

of seismic wave propagation, it has a much better intrinsic resolution than

potential-field methods such as gravity and magnetic surveying, which until now

have been the primary non-seismic data sets used in offshore exploration.

Although by many measures marine CSEM is still in its infancy, the reliability and

noise floors of the instrument systems have improved significantly over the last

decade, and interpretation methodology has progressed from simple anomaly

detection to 3D anisotropic inversion of multi-component data using some of the

world's fastest supercomputers. Research directions presently include tackling

the airwave problem in shallow water by applying time-domain methodology,

continuous profiling tools, and the use of CSEM for reservoir monitoring during

production. ©2010 Society of Exploration Geophysicists

The Leading Edge, July’10 issue

The Potiguar integrated exploration project: CSEM prospectivity

assessment offshore Brazil

Authors: Andrea Lovatini, K.Myers, P.Watterson, T.Campbell, WesternGeco

Abstract:

Newly acquired CSEM data were integrated with several different types of

complementary measurements and techniques in an exploration prospect

evaluation study—which included petroleum systems modeling (PSM)—of the

deepwater offshore area of the Potiguar Basin, northeast Brazil.



Potiguar is the second most productive basin in Brazil, but to date, all production

is from its onshore and nearshore areas. A 2D seismic data set was reprocessed

then interpreted to provide regional scale horizons, which were used as input,

along with other geological and geochemical information, for the study. The

CSEM data clearly defined resistive anomalies over five features interpreted as

potential traps on the seismic data. The CSEM resistivity volumes have provided

added value to the PSM and prospectivity study of this basin.

Resistivity modeling with an EM survey layout. Image courtesy of EMGS.



1.2 Company news

EMGS updates (from EMGS web site) • July’10

o Contract with Pemex for a multi-year contract worth a minimum

of $150 million for 30 deep-water 3D EM surveys. The work

programme is in the Mexican sector of the Gulf of Mexico.

• September’10

o Contract worth a minimum of $ 3 million in Asia. This contract is

a continuation of the previously announced global 3D EM

campaign for a major oil company, the first part of which was a

survey performed in the Caribbean in the first quarter of 2010.

o Woodside has awarded Fugro a controlled-source

electromagnetic survey contract on Australia’s North West Shelf

in 4Q 2010. Fugro has subcontracted the acquisition portion to

EMGS. This $2-million contract will be the first executed under

the Fugro/EMGS alliance which was organized in 2009. The

agreement gives Fugro full access to EMGS’ marine

electromagnetic services.

• October’10

o Electromagnetic Geoservices ASA (EMGS) announced

today that it has secured late-sales worth approximately

USD 4 million for its multi-client 3D EM data in the Barents

Sea, ahead of Norway's 21st exploration licensing round.

These revenues will be recognised in the third quarter of

2010. Industry pre-funding and late-sales year-to-date

totals approximately USD 10 million, of which USD 6

million were recognised in the second quarter of 2010. • Edda consortium

o EMGS is pleased to announce that it has received industry

funding for a joint project to accelerate the use of 3D EM data in

exploration and production. The EDDA project involves acquiring

state-of-the-art 3D EM data over known fields on the Norwegian

Continental Shelf. Data acquisition over the Linerle and Valkyrie

fields has already started using EMGS's mobile acquisition set

deployed on the vessel Siem Mollie. The vessel will subsequently

acquire data over the Snøhvit field, and it is expected that this

survey will be completed by the end of September’10.

OHM updates (from OHM web site) • June’10

“It is only when they go wrong that machines remind you how powerful they are” Clive James



o Contract with Bridge Energy UK in the North Sea. The project,

under OHM's WISE (Well Integration with Seismic and

Electromagnetics) product includes providing the client with

a fully integrated dataset, comprising seismic, CSEM and well

information. The OHM Express, a state-of-the-art vessel for

conducting safe and reliable CSEM operations, will acquire

the CSEM survey.

• July’10

o Several projects in the Asia-Pacific region performed during the

summer, with contract extensions expected.

Petromarker updates (from Petromarker web site)

• August’10

o PetroMarker AS and Concedo ASA, a Norwegian exploration

oil company, have signed a contract for the acquisition of EM

data on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS). TEMP-VEL, the

proprietary marine vertical EM technology of PetroMarker,

will be used to provide Concedo with valuable assessment

data.

Blueback Reservoir updates

Blueback has released another version of the Bridge CSEM visualization and

interpretation Petrel plug-in software. The new version includes upgrades to the

Bridge interpretation loop for combining EM forward modelling with

interpretation of recorded data and EM inversion analysis.

Blueback Reservoir and TechnoImaging have entered into a development

agreement for adding TechnoImaging technology within EM forward modeling,

EM inversion and imaging to the Bridge interpretation workflow.

For more information contact Blueback on www.blueback-reservoir.com.



1.3 The players in the EM market

This overview of the players in the EM market will be included in future

Newsletters – and will be updated based on your feedback and input.

I expect this list of companies to grow based your feedback, so please take

a moment to look through it and send me your comments.

Companies offering survey planning and design, data acquisition,

processing and interpretation

• OHM

o www.Ohmsurveys.com

• EMGS

o www.emgs.com

• Schlumberger WesternGeco.

o http://www.westerngeco.com/services/electromagnetics.aspx

• Petromarker

o www.petromarker.com

• PGS

o www.pgs.com/Geophysical-services/Electromagnetic-services

• EMTEK

o www.emtek.as

• Multifield Geophysics

o www.multifield-geophysics.com

• KMS Technologies (owned by EMGS).

o www.kmstechnologies.com

• Fugro

o www.fugro.com

• Quantec Geoscience

o www.quantecgeoscience.com

Companies offering data processing and/or interpretation

• Comsol

o Software solutions for multiphysics modeling

o www.comsol.com

• Blueback Reservoir

o Software development and consulting services

o www.blueback-reservoir.com

• OHM-RSI (owned by OHM)

Page

10

The EM Network – Sponsored by Blueback Reservoir www.blueback-reservoir.com


o www.ohmrsi.com

• Geosystem (owned by SLB WesternGeco)

o www.geosystem.net

• TechnoImaging

o www.technoimaging.com

Industry consortia

• SEMC consortium at SCRIPPS

o http://marineemlab.ucsd.edu

• Marine Control Source ElectroMagnetic Consortium (CSEM)

o http://geophysics.mines.edu/cgem/consortia/csem.html

• Wise

o www.rocksolidimages.com/wise.htm

• CEMI at University of Utah

o http://cemi-dt-13.gg.utah.edu/~wmcemi/

Academia, research institutes, etc

• National Oceanography Centre, UK

o www.noc.soton.ac.uk/gg/research/geophysics/em.php

• NGI, Norway

o www.ngi.no/en/Areas-of-research-and-

development/Geophysics

• Colorado School of Mines, USA

o http://geophysics.mines.edu/cgem/hot_topics/csem_full.ht

ml

• SCRIPPS Institution of Oceanography, USA

o http://marineemlab.ucsd.edu

• SINTEF research, Norway

o www.sintef.no/Home/Petroleum-and-Energy/SINTEF-

Petroleum-Research/Seismic-and-Reservoir-

Technology/Seismic/Electromagnetic-modeling

• Open EM – a community resource for electromagnetic geophysics

o www.openEM.org

• EarthScope

o www.EMScope.org – the MT component of a large US

project managed by Oregon State University

• The Electromagnetics Academy

o http://emacademy.mit.edu/

Page

11



• MTNet

o A resource for scientists engaged in the study of the Earth

using electromagnetic methods, principally the

magnetotelluric technique (magnetotellurics).

o http://mtnet.dias.ie/main/

As you can see from this temporary list, it only covers the companies

involved with the CSEM technology. This is not a limitation so please

forward to me links to companies working on the electromagnetic

technology for the oil and gas business.

Companies providing hardware and EM equipment

• Phoenix Geophysics Limited

o Land Instruments (receivers and transmitters) for MT -

AMT - CSEM - TDEM (Fixed loop, LOTEM) , FDEM, IP, SIP.

o Instruments engineered for deep exploration. Sensors

adapted for Marine CSEM. Transmitters from 3 to 200 kW

(FD and TD)

o http://www.phoenix-geophysics.com

• Geometrics

o Stratagem system (AMT-CSAMT) and their shallow FDEM

o http://www.geometrics.com

• Metronix

o MT receiver equipment

o http://88.198.212.158/mtxweb/index.php

• Zonge

o Receivers and Transmitters fro AMT MT (16 bit) CSAMT TEM

and SIP

o http://www.zonge.com.au

• Alpha Geoscience

o light TDEM system called Terratem

o http://www.alpha-geo.com

Scientists have discovered a noise made just prior to the Big Bang, which sounds something like "Oops" Cully Abrell

Page

12



1.4 Discussion from the web site

Our web site has a Discussions page with several interesting discussions lately.

Here is an example:

Vertical vs Horizontally Oriented Sensor Arrays

Chris Walker, RXT

Can anyone in the group share with me their experiences of CSEM using the

vertical array (Petromarker) method, and compare it to the traditional

horizontal array (EMGS/OHM) approach?

Kerry Key, Scripps

I took a theoretical look at this in a Geophysics paper published last year:

http://marineemlab.ucsd.edu/~kkey/Pubs/2009b.pdf

In brief, the horizontal transmitter has superior resolution to a vertical

transmitter. This was also suggested, but not proven, in the original paper on

marine CSEM:

Chave, A. and C. Cox, 1982, Controlled electromagnetic sources for measuring

electrical-conductivity beneath the oceans. 1. Forward problem and model

study: Journal of Geophys- ical Research, 87, no. NB7, 5327–5338

Mårten Blixt, Blueback

To add some nuance, PetroMarker has made a comment to your article Kerry:

http://petromarker.com/comment-article-geophysics

To be fair, both methods have their pros and cons, but without doubt is the

traditional approach more mature and robust.

Kerry Key, Scripps

Thanks Mårten for pointing that out, hadn't seen that yet. My paper doesn't

consider Petromarker's specific Jz-Ez system, rather it was intended to be an

apples-to-apples comparison of horizontal versus vertical transmitters, with all

other parameters and noise levels being equal.

E-H streamlines. Image courtesy

of Andrew Pethick.

“It was with unalloyed pleasure that I became aware that a vigorous earthquake was in progress” G.K.Gilbert on the 1906 San

Fransisco earthquake

Page

13



Terje Holten's comments about my paper are interesting and I would love to see

them elaborated in a peer-reviewed paper. Certainly both horizontal and

vertical transmitter methods benefit in measurement precision (but perhaps not

survey cost) when the transmitter is parked on the seafloor for each

transmission location. So Petromarker's method does have a precision

advantage, but i'm not sure that the increased cost of slowing down the survey

acquisition is a fair trade off in the value proposition. And obviously you could

park a horizontal transmitter on the seabed and also achieve a higher precision

measurement. So apples-to-apples, I still say the resolution is better for a

horizontal transmitter.

I'd also like to respond to his concern about the 1% relative noise floor I used,

which he stated is much larger than what Petromarker's system can achieve. An

absolute noise floor of about 0.1 - 1 nV or so is fairly standard for good electric

field sensors. Normalize that by a dipole moment of about 100,000 Am and you

get around 10^-15 V/Am^2 as the absolute system-noise floor. This is what

Holten states in his response, which I agree with as a representative absolute

noise floor and hence why I used that in my paper. So what about the relative

noise floor? That depends on the uncertainty in parameters such as the sensor

orientation, sensor calibrations and most importantly the absolute positions of

the source and receivers. For the sake of argument, lets suppose we'd like to

have 0.1% relative error, rather than the 1% I used. The relative orientation

angle between transmitter and receiver needs to be known to with 3 degrees to

get 0.1% relative error, which could easily be obtained with present day tilt

meters, so that isn't much of a practical issue unless the tilts aren't measured.

Sensor calibrations can be done accurately in the lab to levels of no worse than

0.1%. Finally lets consider position uncertainty. Suppose the receiver is at 500 m

offset, as Holten mentions. At this short an offset, the electric field peaks at

around 10^-11 and has a spatial gradient in the radial direction that is about

10^-14 V/Am^2 / m. If the source-receiver position uncertainty was 1 m, the

relative error would be 0.1%. If the uncertainty in position offset was 10 m, then

the relative error would be about 1%. I don't know any contractors getting 1 m

position accuracy between two deep water seafloor instruments with standard

USBL systems; 10 m is probably more realistic. So i'd say that at best a 0.1%

relative error might be possible for some very very carefully collected data. I

could re-run my synthetic inversions with this lower noise floor...okay, just did,

here are the results:

http://marineemlab.ucsd.edu/kkey/RelativeErrorComp.jpg

So bumping down the relative error to 0.1% did improve the resolution of the

Jz-Ez inversion, but it is still vastly inferior to the horizontal transmitter and

receiver (Jy-Ey) with a 1% relative error.

I agree with Holten's statement that time-domain and frequency domain

methods have different sensitivities. However, since time-domain responses can

Image courtesy of Westerngeco

Page

14



be obtained by Fourier transformation of the frequency domain responses, the

better resolution of horizontal transmitters and receivers will hold for time

domain data as well.

Stefan Helwig, Emtek

Very interesting discussion.

Kerry, in your last reply you pointed out that: "since time-domain responses can

be obtained by Fourier transformation of the frequency domain responses, the

better resolution of horizontal transmitters and receivers will hold for time

domain data as well."

There is of course no doubt that time domain fields can be calculated using

Fourier transform. In order for your argument to work all the time the sensitivity

of the response generated by a horizontal transmitter would need to be better

than the one generated by a vertical one for all frequencies. Is that actually

true?

The situation becomes even more complicated if we look at this in 3D. While the

above described condition might be true in 1D there actually might be

differences in the sensitivities of both approaches depending on reservoir size

and survey objective.

For a vertical downhole transmitter part of this is discussed in Sholl & Edwards

2007 (Geophysics). They point out that the sensitivity towards the lateral

boundary is superior with the vertical borehole transmitter. At the same time

they point out that the vertical resolution is poorer which is in agreement with

your observations. While the situation with the Petromarker system is not 100%

the same I still think that the argument should hold for their system too.

Terje Holten, Petromarker

Hi, I’d like to join this interesting discussion. This discussion is a good reminder

for us to publish more results. My college Eirik Flekkøy will have a poster talk at

EAGE in Barcelona where we elaborate more on measurement of noise.

For the Petromarker technology to work it is necessary to turn off the

transmitter during measurement and therefore work in time domain since the

offsets are small. Apart this point, it is possible to do a transformation between

the two domains, so the difference in theory is small.

I agree with Kerry’s comment about positioning. The main contribution comes

from the constant uncertainty from the positioning of lower electrode, which is

usually larger than the random noise that originates from the movement of the

vessel from the fixed point above the measured position of the lower electrode.

Some kind of uncertainties have a large magnitude, for instance errors in

measured seawater resistivity, but have minor or no impact in the inversion

since it only affects the early times. While tilt effects modifies the slope at late

times and have a major impact on the inversion. The noise frequencies of 0.1-1

Hz is the most problematic since stacking is not effective here.

Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change Stephen Hawking

Page

15



So how does this compare to the relative noise in Kerry’s paper? The relative

noise originates from the transmitter, as I understand. In our case, most of the

uncertainties are systematic and repeatable between each pulse , and a smaller

part is random. The horizontal method has errors with more random than

systematic contributions. The error in offset has low impact on our inversion

since it only affects early times, so basically the tilt of transmitter dominates our

‘relative noise’. All in all, adding realistic noise to the vertical dipole is somewhat

complicated.

I also pointed about that the averaging produced a bias since only short offsets

have a value for our method and offsets up to 20 km are used for averaging in

Key’s paper. I would prefer a fixed offset of 1000m for Petromarker method,

while the horizontal dipole method can use its best offset (7km?). It is possible

to do a rerun with a fixed offset, Kerry? Also, what is spectrum of your relative

noise?

David Alumbaugh, Schlumberger

So just to add my two cents here....

We are presenting papers both in Barcelona as well as the SEG looking at the

resolving capabilities of the two acquisition scenarios in 1D and 2D (or 3D) from

a theoretical perspective; we will also be publishing a paper in Geophysics(

when we get around to finishing it). What we have found from both a pure

theoretical perspective (approximate analytic solutions) as well as empirical 1D

inversion results is that the close offset vertical-vertical system does not have

the resolving capability of the standard CSEM configuration. The theoretical

analysis has shown that at close offsets such as used by Petromarker, the layer

response is dominated by an 'image like' term. This is similar to DC resistivity

and central loop TEM. However, in standard CSEM you make measurements at

large offsets where you pick up a 'guided mode'. As it turns out this guided

mode has much more sensitivity to the properties of the resistive layer than

does the image term. So if you run a 1D inversion for the Petromarker

configuration and compare it to results for the standard CSEM configuration,

what you find is you get much better resolution of the layer resistivity and

thickness for the latter, even if you set the noise level for the Petromarker

configuration at 10 times less than the horizontal-horizontal data.

However the better resolution scenario breaks down in two cases. The first is if

for the horizontal-horizontal when you go to a low enough frequency such that

you are approaching DC. In this case the guided mode is not generated and all

you are left with is an image like layer response (note that this does away with

the concept of going to low frequency as a method for mitigating the air-wave

effect). Thus the low frequency CSEM inversion results look similar to those that

you get by inverting the close offset transient Jz-Ez data. The second case that

was alluded to by Stefan above is when you get into 2D and 3D scenarios. To

generate the guided mode requires the target to be of sufficient lateral extent.

So if the target is smaller than offset that is required to really detect the guided

mode, you again only detect an image-like layer response. And in this case

because the standard CSEM method is using larger offsets where as the

Page

16



Petromarker example is at fairly short offsets, the Petromarker anomaly is

actually larger for the same target. Plus it appears to have better lateral

resolution as you go over the edge of the target. However to make use of this

lateral resolving capability would require dense, nearly continuous

measurements like you get with the towed horizontal source. As I understand it,

this continuous profiling acquisition mode is rather difficult with the current

Petromarker configuration due to fact that the source boat has to stop and

position each new source position rather than continuously towing.

I think what it comes down to is both methods have some advantages and

disadvantages, with the 'best' measurement system changing depending on

geologic situation that is being investigated.....

This discussions continues on the web sites with input from Aramco and

Fugro/EMGS.

2. Events and technology updates

• SEG 2010 in Denver

o http://www.seg.org

o EM sessions all 3 days. Check out the program on the web site

• SCRIPPS

o Will host Marelec 2011 – the world’s foremost conference on

marine electromagnetics

o http://www.marelec.co.uk

• Links to various technical papers on EM (please forward additional links for

inclusion on this list):

o http://www.westerngeco.com/media/resources/articles/200809_a

ogr_mmt_improves_subsalt.pdf

o www.emgs.com/research_publications/technical_papers.php

o www.ohmsurveys.com/case.php

o http://www.westerngeco.com/~/media/Files/WesternGeco/resourc

es/papers/2009/2009seg30.ashx

Page

17



3. Career Networking

Another of the reasons for instigating The EM Network was to advertise career

positions that may be of interest to our members. This will never be the major

part of our newsletter as the intention is to keep it as technically focused as

much as possible. However I intend to carry on with this section until someone

convinces me otherwise.

The source for these positions is mainly from

1. Our group’s JOBS section on the web site

2. the company web sites

3. recruiters contacting our group

Find a job you love and you’ll never work a day in your life” Confucius

Page

18



• OHM Surveys - http://www.ohmsurveys.com/careers.php

• EMGS - http://www.emgs.com/careers/

• Oil Careers recruiting

http://careers.infooil.com/fx/jobs/listings/1.343276/sr.geophysicist.in

terpretation.of.gravity.magnetics.electromagnetics.aspx

• Working Smart recruiting

o http://www.earthworks-jobs.com/oil/ws754.html

• Misco jobs recruiting

o http://www.miscojobs.com/jobs/L_2/job_451282.htm

• Piper Morgan recruiting

o http://jobview.monster.com/Sr-Geophysicist-Interpretation-

of-Gravity-Magnetics-Electromagnetics-Job-Houston-TX-US-

90231607.aspx

Page

19



4. Requests for input for newsletter #6

After receiving this few EM Network newsletters you should now realize the kind

of newsletter we are trying to achieve. If you would like to add an article, or

some input for the Technology section, for the next newsletter (scheduled for

January 2011), then simply email me the proposed article and I will do my best

to include it.

Regards,

[email protected]

Autumn is here!

- at least on the northern hemisphere :-)

Date post:	22-Nov-2014
Category:	Technology
Upload:	phovdenak
View:	1,465 times
Download:	0 times