# Reticulate Australia



## Trader Paul (15 October 2007)

Hi folks,

Did you know that we have been pumping water from Perth to Kalgoorlie, 
which is 360 metres above sea level, for over 100 years !~!

Imagine, how much water and energy we can save, if we could REVERSE
that flow ..... there would be a torrent of water flowing into our parched 
reservoirs in Perth and other dry capitals, throughout Australia can also
be supplied, with some of the sweetest water, that you have ever tasted !~!

Described as the largest infrastructure project, since the Snowy River 
Scheme, Reticulate Australia has the potential to bring into reality the 
dreams of forward-thinkers, like Ernie Bridge, billionaire Richard Pratt and
C.Y. O'Connor ....

From the Ord River dam in the Kimberley, let's build a SHORT link to the
NORTHERN Officer Basin to MAINTAIN underground reserves in and then 
another pipeline from SOUTHERN Officer Basin to Kalgoorlie, and on to 
Perth and the dry interior of the South-west wheatbelt.

Fill the old gold mining pits and regional dams to optimum levels to 
encourage local industry, leisure and tourism activities.

Another line from the Officer Basin to be run EASTWARDS, in tandem 
with a GAS pipeline from Kalgoorlie and/or Canning Basin onshore gasfields
to the Palm Valley gasfields, the onwards to Alice Springs and Moomba.

From there, both water and gas can be distributed in this dual-pipe 
configuration to link with established networks and create new links to 
critical dams and reservoirs at the head of our failing eastern waterways.

We have the WATER and GAS , we have the technology, let's get a 
committment from the pollies to stand up and lobby for a common-sense 
approach to  maintaining water and energy, throughout Australia.

Towing icebergs from Antarctica or giant desalination plants are NOT 
the answer for drought-proofing Australia ..... instead, we have a PROVEN
underground resource of potable water, in the Officer Basin, more than 
THREE times the size of Sydney Harbour ... and a means to CONTINUALLY 
replenish that underground storage to give us a PERMANENT wtaer supply,
Australia-wide  !~! 

Imagine the benefits to farmers across the nation, a water supply, that
never runs dry!!  Fill Cubbie Station catchments, with a mandate to 
maintain water flows, in the Darling River system ... it CAN be DONE !~!

Broadacre irrigation to ensure a bumper cotton and grain crops along 
the Darling River system ... EVERY YEAR!!

Open up new land that was previously marginal, due to lack of water.
and fill the Western Lakes Districts of Victoria again, to optimal levels. 

Without any treatment, the water quality is much better, than that 
delivered to Adelaide, for example and if our federal government does
not take the initiative, then the states will eventually be forced into
tapping this resource, anyway. If that happens, it will take a lot longer
to complete the national grid, as it will be a fragmented approach.

Get involved, have your say about the advancement of a pipeline network 
that will drought-proof Australia and provide cheap energy nationwide.

In this election year, let's get a commitment from the politicians to build
a national gas and water grid ... once and for all, let's drought-proof this
country and finally Reticulate Australia, with BOTH GAS and WATER ... !~!

have a great day

   paul

P.S. ..... Rudd has already indicated, that WATER will be an election issue.
            Let's see if either major party has the political gumption to support
            the BIGGEST infrastructure project, that Australia has ever seen !~!  




=====


----------



## Whiskers (15 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*

I'm with you trader paul.

Hell, if the romans could supply running water to their cities by gravity and simple lifting mechanisims 2000 years ago, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be doing more of it today.

There might be a little bit of contamination in some of the big old mine pits, but that shouldn't be too difficult to correct.


----------



## So_Cynical (15 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*



Trader Paul said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> Did you know that we have been pumping water from Perth to Kalgoorlie,
> which is 360 metres above sea level, for over 100 years !~!
> ...





Hey thats my idea...cept the pipeline should go south east to hook up with the Adelaide Darwin 
Hwy and water SA, Mildura and the Eyre peninsular.

Before anything is done Lake argyle should be extended into the next valley to the west.

I would gladly give up my promised $20 per week tax cut for it.


----------



## Trader Paul (21 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*



Trader Paul said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> Did you know that we have been pumping water from Perth to Kalgoorlie,
> which is 360 metres above sea level, for over 100 years !~!
> ...







Hi folks,

S.A Water says, that they will likely be handing out
bottled water in Adelaide, within the next year ... !~!

Seems like it will be only a short period of time, before S.A Water will
be building that relaitively short Reticulate Australia pipeline, from 
officer Basin to Adelaide ..... to bless them with the sweetest water,
that croweaters have ever tasted ... 

In this election year, let's get a commitment from the politicians to build
a national gas and water grid ... once and for all, let's drought-proof this
country and finally Reticulate Australia, with BOTH GAS and WATER ... !~!

have a great weekend all

     paul



=====


----------



## Kimosabi (21 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*

Imagine what could have been done regarding Australia's water problems with the money that has been spent fighting illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...


----------



## trinity (21 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*



> Imagine what could have been done regarding Australia's water problems with the money that has been spent fighting illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...




It's easier to fatten their own wallets with oil than water ...


----------



## Mofra (21 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*



Kimosabi said:


> Imagine what could have been done regarding Australia's water problems with the money that has been spent fighting illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...



Even a fraction of the reconstruction dollars would cover the cost of a nationwide network of waterpipes _and_ there would be enough to cover our major irrigation systems to reduce the loss due to evaporation.
I'm glad some see this is a major issue for Australia.


----------



## long$$ (21 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*

Trader, you are talking a veritable river of water. This to my mind means a set of pipes the like of which you see running down the mountain to the Snowy River scheme power station running for hundreds of kilometres. I couldn't find an exact diameter but these look 2-3m in this small picture.  The construction and pumping costs would be huge. Remember each cubic metre of water weighs one tonne. Do you have any estimates?


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*

Totally agreed that something needs to be done.

Another option would be an undersea pipeline from Tas. That could be used to replace the Murray supply for Adelaide thus freeing up some water for other uses. Another pipe could be built to supplement Melbourne's supply thus freeing up some of that water for other uses also.

North Queensland is another potential source of water for SE Australia. It's a pretty logical one for SE Qld and also parts of NSW.

Which one? Cost is the logical means to decide since it doesn't really matter whether the water comes from WA, Nth Qld or Tas as long as it ends up in SE Qld, NSW, Vic and SA where it's needed. 

Realistically, we're only talking about adding modestly to the existing supplies. That is, we don't need to replace all the water we use now, just add some to it.


----------



## theasxgorilla (21 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*

Not doing something would be of utmost neglect on the governments behalf, and not supporting a well thought out solution, irrespective of the fact that its gonna cost megabucks, would be heinous on behalf the voters, no matter which party your favour.

Australia is richer now than ever...now is the time create a really well engineered long term solution.  My suspicion is that like many infrastructure solutions of the last 30 years whatever is eventually decided upon will be half-baked at best.


----------



## nioka (21 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*

I can't see that it would ever be practical to pipe water long distances for irrigation purposes but it is practical to shift agriculture closer to the water as has been done at the ord. 
However it would be practical to pipe water long distances for household use, as was done for Kalgoolie. Not long ago the WA opposition party did have as one of it's election promises a plan to pipe water from the Ord to Perth, from memory the plan was costed at about $1billion. The Govt of the day scoffed at the scheme and it would take some riducle if it changed it's mind now.
There was also a scheme suggested for flooding central Australia by means of a canal to the sea. The suggestion was that by creating an inland sea it would create a different weather pattern over the eastern half of Australia and bring more ( and regular) rain to the western areas or NSW. SA and southwestern QLD.
 It still gets back to WE NEED MORE DAMS.
There is enough water goes past my door in the Clarence River on most days of the year to keep the Murray running a "banker". A proposal that would see a local pollie lose their seat if they even thought about it. I,m in favour of sending some of it over the hill but I would be outnumbered by 100 to 1.


----------



## Kimosabi (21 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*



nioka said:


> I can't see that it would ever be practical to pipe water long distances for irrigation purposes but it is practical th shift agriculture closer to the water as has been done at the ord.
> However it would be practical to pipe water long distances for household use, as was done for Kalgoolie. Not long ago the WA opposition party did have as one of it's election promises a plan to pipe water from the Ord to Perth, from memory the plan was costed at about $1billion. The Govt of the day scoffed at the scheme and it would take some riducle if it changed it's mind now.
> There was also a scheme suggested for flooding central Australia by means of a canal to the sea. The suggestion was that by creating an inland sea it would create a different weather pattern over the eastern half of Australia and bring more ( and regular) rain to the western areas or NSW. SA and southwestern QLD.
> It still gets back to WE NEED MORE DAMS.
> There is enough water goes past my door in the Clarence River on most days of the year to keep the Murray running a "banker". A proposal that would see a local pollie lose their seat if they even thought about it. I,m in favour of sending some of it over the hill but I would be outnumbered by 100 to 1.




What's even more interesting is when you research HHO and Fuel Cells, is we could get the energy to pump the water from, well Water...


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*



long$$ said:


> Trader, you are talking a veritable river of water. This to my mind means a set of pipes the like of which you see running down the mountain to the Snowy River scheme power station running for hundreds of kilometres. I couldn't find an exact diameter but these look 2-3m in this small picture.  The construction and pumping costs would be huge. Remember each cubic metre of water weighs one tonne. Do you have any estimates?



Pipelines of that size aren't cheap. Basically, pipes on this scale are something you build only when canals, flumes and so on aren't practical.

As for the cost, a few situations to compare with.

The Lake Margaret power station has a woodstave pipeline (penstock is steel) of 2.2km length diameter 1.2m. 

The existing pipeline is for practical purposes worn out (looks like a giant soaker hose losing about 10% of total flow to leakage) and was in danger of complete collapse when closed mid-2006.  

The cost of a replacement pipeline is around $10 million and is similar for woodstave, steel or glass reinforced plastic (GRP). The latter has a relatively short 30 year design life so is not being seriously considered. The favoured option is woodstave for heritage reasons (the power scheme commenced operation 1914 and still has the original machinery etc) but if it wasn't for that aspect then steel would be the answer due to less ongoing maintenance required.

Costs in this situation are relatively high due to the inaccessible location. Road vehicles of any type can't get there so it's either literally carry the whole lot in and assemble it (the way it was originally built) or use helicopters. Also the weather there is truly shocking (it was largely wind blown ice that wore through the pipe from the outside in) which makes everything more difficult.

Another thing is much of the pipe needs to be supported on pillars (which also need replacing) as it's a _very_ steep location going round the side of mountains for most of its length. None of the pipe will be underground. 

So $4.5 million per kilometer of 1.2m diameter pipe is pretty much the worst case scenario. If all goes to plan then the new pipe should be up and running sometime in 2010.

Some other ones are the Vic - Tas undersea gas pipeline (completed 2002) cost about $400 million. The length I'm not certain but 250 - 300 km undersea. Diameter from memory is about 400mm.

Onshore major gas pipelines generally $0.25 million per kilometer (before the recent rise in materials costs) under good conditions - digging through farmland etc and not having to cross rivers, major roads etc.


----------



## Trader Paul (22 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*



... of course, it will be expensive, but doing NOTHING will be even
more expensive !~!

Instead of GUARANTEED crops EVERY year, Australia will continue in the 
boom/bust cycle that comes with every drought, followed by a brief period
of "normal" rains ..... THAT has ALREADY cost Australia $$$billions$$$.

We have the technology ... just look at Libya ... piping water more than
1,000 km from 300 water wells in Saria, located in the middle of the 
Sahara Desert to the Mediterranean coast, through a 5 metre (15 feet)
diameter concrete pipeline ... yes, concrete ... cast in situ !~!

..... it is called, the man-made river ... 

We have the energy (gas) and water, we have the technology and the
federal government could fund this long-term infrastructure project in a 
flash ... all that is required is a commitment from the politicians !~!

Reticulate Australia, with BOTH gas and water ... and droughtproof Oz !~!

happy days

 paul



=====


----------



## Julia (22 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*



Trader Paul said:


> ... of course, it will be expensive, but doing NOTHING will be even
> more expensive !~!
> 
> Instead of GUARANTEED crops EVERY year, Australia will continue in the
> ...



Completely agree.

Both sides of politics agree on the need for a sound and growing economy.
But I think sometimes in all the spin and hype it's easy for them to overlook the basic reason for having a sound economy, i.e. to provide for the needs of the populace.  And the whole water situation is a real priority throughout much of Australia.  Withdraw the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce the level of pay rises for politicians, just stop spending money on any other number of wasteful programmes and just build the pipelines.  There is enough pure fresh water pouring into the sea from Fraser Island to supply the whole of the Fraser Coast without even any need for the current dam.


----------



## The Once-ler (22 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*

I think a lot of you people are just dreaming.

It takes a lot of water to grow food. How much will it cost to pump this water all this distance you are talking about? I have no idea, maybe smurf would know, but for it to work in agriculture, the economics has to add up. If it doesn't add up, we would be better off just importing the food, and letting some other country worry about the water situation.

This article,..
http://www.clw.csiro.au/issues/water/water_for_food.html#howmuch

Shows how much water is required per crop. It says,...



CSIRO Land and Water scientists have used precision weighing systems to measure water use by various crops, and the yield from the crops. The following approximate figures were revealed:

To produce one kilogram of oven dry wheat grain, it takes 715 – 750 litres of water 
For 1 kg maize, 540 – 630 litres 
For 1 kg soybeans, 1650 – 2200 litres 
For 1 kg paddy rice, 1550 litres 
For 1 kg beef, 50,000 – 100,000 litres 
For 1 kg clean wool, 170,000 litres 


So, just using the wheat figure. Here is a commodity worth just 40c per kilo. And this is current drought prices. Normally it would be closer to 20c per kilo. It takes 750 litres of water to grow 20c to 40c worth of wheat. The farmer has to make a profit. It might cost him 15c per kilo for fertilizer, diesel, sprays etc, so he might be only making 5c per kilo.

Lets use beef. Farmers are getting about 400c dressed for beef. So it takes 50 000 litres to grow a kilo of beef. 

I can't see how water could be pumped these massive distances and it to be economic at current farm commodity prices, although if someone can show otherwise, fire away.

The Snowy scheme worked so well because everything is running down hill, and generating power as it goes, but theres only one Snowy Mountains. Pumping water across up and down dale, thousands of ks is another matter altogether.


----------



## prawn_86 (22 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*

Once, although i myself havnt done the figures, i think it is volume that would make it worth while.

thoeretically, if a pipe from Darwin to Adelaide went straight down the middle of australia, and say even 1km each side was open to irrigation, this is a vast amount of land which could now be used, which couldnt previously. Providing the pump and pipes could handle the amount of water needed, as you have suggested, then it is very possible imo.


----------



## The Once-ler (22 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*

I would like to know the costs.

Just because something is possible to do, doesn't mean it should be done.

Years and years ago, the Saudi's were growing barley in the desert using desalinated sea water. I believe the costs were about $1000 a tonne. This was using natural gas that was almost worthless at the time. The grain could have been bought from Australia for about $100 a tonne delivered.

They did this because it gave them a self sufficient warm and fuzzy feeling. Doesn't mean it was sensible.

The worst thing was, being Saudi's, it wasn't even turned into beer.!!!


----------



## Julia (22 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*

The Once-ler

Yes, of course the figures would have to add up for agriculture.
The other day I bought two bunches of asparagus, both at $1.25.
One was Australian grown and the other was from Peru!
We could be importing NZ produce at feasible prices.

But when Brisbane will simply run out of drinking water if all the recycled pipelines don't produce sufficient water, and the S.A. water authority is making enquiries about supplying Adelaide with bottled water, don't we have to consider pipelines from where the water is abundant?

And on the question of more dams, the dams supplying Brisbane are there - the rain just isn't falling into them so I don't see how building more dams will help if it simply doesn't rain.


----------



## The Once-ler (22 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*



Julia said:


> But when Brisbane will simply run out of drinking water .




I'm certainly not concerned about Brisbanes drinking water.
This place gets over a metre a year rain average.
It's got 500 mills this year. Including 20 mills just last week.
There is hundreds of thousands of litres of the best water running off every ones roof tops every year.
If people can't help themselves in such a wet climate, then that's their problem.


----------



## Julia (22 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*



The Once-ler said:


> I'm certainly not concerned about Brisbanes drinking water.
> This place gets over a metre a year rain average.
> It's got 500 mills this year. Including 20 mills just last week.
> There is hundreds of thousands of litres of the best water running off every ones roof tops every year.
> If people can't help themselves in such a wet climate, then that's their problem.




So are you suggesting every property must have a rainwater tank?
I've recently installed 3 x 5000 litre tanks (in June) and there is no way they have received enough inflow to run the household plus the garden and pool.
And I'm not in Brisbane but further north with a higher rainfall on average.
How are you going to organise rainwater tanks for high rise apartments?
I'd be genuinely interested in how you would ensure Brisbane has plenty of water.  Ditto Adelaide.

And you simply can't say "then that's their problem".  No it's not.  It is the job of State governments and local water authorities to provide a reliable water supply to the population.  That is why we pay taxes.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*

A bit of technical info about dams and their operation for anyone who is interested. 

The purpose of dams is not only for storage as commonly assumed. If you build a dam that has natural inflow (ie put the dam on a river - contrary to popular belief not all dams are built on rivers) then it will have an annual yield of x with variation +/- x%. 

Using the storage capacity (larger the better within reason) the inflow is effectively averaged out thus providing a sustainable yield of x. A reliability factor (which is a matter of decision making) is then applied which will result in a "firm supply" value somewhat less than the gross yield.

I'm using Tasmanian figures here simply because I have the data. The same principles apply to any large scale water storage system.

For example, applying a 2% annual probability of failure (ie forced reduction in output to below 100% of normal for any period of time) to the Hydro Tas system results in a net yield of 91% of gross _regulated_ flow (regulated flow means outflows excluding spill). 

If that is changed to allow up to 20% output reduction as part of "normal" operations (that is, only a fall below 80% of normal is counted as "restricted") then that increases the annual yield to about 94.5% of gross regulated flow. 

So if you decrease the minimum "firm" value that is acceptable then you increase the average yield. Accepting a maximum 30% production drop takes the system up to 96% utilisation of regulated flows, for example. 

The only way to get to 100% is to have very large storage capacity such that spill _never_ occurs even in a major flood. This is difficult to do in practice for a network of dams since it isn't always possible to build the dam high enough to create enough storage. For example, storage capacity in Tas ranges from 5 years at Great Lake (which has never been full) to about 48 hours of the natural inflow at Trevallyn (which spills quite regularly). Travallyn could not in practice be built much higher than it already is (would flood too much land for too little benefit) so the spill there is unavoidable. The same situation exists elsewhere in the system too.

Lake Margaret storage, for example, loses 2% of total inflows to spill. It holds about 3 months worth of inflows when full. That is a pure hydro-electric storage (no other use of the water) so can be run at least partly according to rainfall. More storage is needed for an irrigation or urban water supply storage since it isn't useful to be having maximum water release during a flood - you want maximum release when it's dry.

As for how a network of dams should be operated, basically what you want is to minimise spill but never run any storage completely dry. So that generally means running the small storages to seasonal "target" levels and adjusting outflows from the lager storages in order to attain those targets. 

For example, the northern headwater storages (which are small relative to inflow - a few months worth) in Tas are now almost full but were very low at the start of Winter. That outcome is entirely intentional and is achieved in a very calculated, scientific manner by adjusting production rates to achieve the desired fill / depletion rates whenever possible. Those target levels are a means of balancing the risk of high inflows (ie heavy rain) and minimising spill versus the risk of high outflows being required at a time of low rainfall (due to unexpected  major storage plant breakdown or high demand for export power, for example).

So in the context of Brisbane etc yes buildiing more dams will increase the supply of water on the condition that (1) they are built in a scale and location that gives a firm annual yield that is not zero and (2) they are operated collectively as an INTEGRATED system. 

Integrated operation produces far higher output than independent operation. That is, if you have numerous dams then operating them collectively as one integrated system will produce far more water / power on a firm basis than stand alone operation. Quite a few of the dams in Tas for example have close to zero firm capacity as a stand alone operation but they make a significant contribution as part of an integrated system. 

About 60% of the system in Tas wouldn't be much use at all as a stand alone operation - it can't achieve a decent firm supply level by itself. It only works due to integration (a point resonably well understood by the general public) through which it can achieve a very high level of reliability of output at a level far higher than stand alone operation could produce.

New Zealand loses about 10% of total production directly due to "competition" despite only having a small number of competitors. I'm not sure of the extent of losses but having Snowy Hydro and the Murray-Darling Basin Commission as separate operators certainly doesn't improve the management of the resource (MDBC treats Snowy outflows as unpredictable and intermittent just like the rain).


----------



## kitehigh (23 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*



Julia said:


> Completely agree.
> 
> Withdraw the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce the level of pay rises for politicians, just stop spending money on any other number of wasteful programmes and just build the pipelines.




I think you will find if Labor gets in they intend to withdraw troops from Iraq which I think is sensible as they are doing very little there anyways.  But they have stated that they intend to keep troops in Afganistan, which I agree with as there is alot more hope for success there than there is in Iraq.

I don't think the pay rate of politicians is a concern but rather we have too many of them.  Too much government at every level, I think.  If you actually look at what Politicians get paid it isn't spectacular for the amount of time spent away from home and putting up with the intrusions into your private life.  I for one wouldn't want the job at that lousy rate.

Prime Minster's Salary as of September 2006: $309,270
Base salaries for politicians: $118,950

I agree with you that there needs to be better oversite of money spent on projects.  Government projects are some of the most wasteful, due mainly to poor project managment (due to not having the right people in the job) and poor advice.

I have to agree with The Once-ler, just because something is possible to do, doesn't mean it should be done. 

We should instead look more at water conservation.  People waste far too much water at the moment, due mainly to it being artificially cheap.  Alot of gardens in Australia use far too much water because they are gardens designed on a European model not an Australian one.

"Australia's rainfall is the lowest of the continents (excluding Antarctica). This low rainfall combined with very high evaporation leads to low river flows. Despite this, Australia has one of the highest per capita water consumption rates in the world."
http://conservewater.melbournewater.com.au/content/driest.asp

Wake up Australians!!!

 Growing cotton seems like another waste of water in my mind but maybe someone can convince me otherwise.....


----------



## The Once-ler (23 October 2007)

*Re: Reticulate Australia .....*



Julia said:


> I've recently installed 3 x 5000 litre tanks (in June) and there is no way they have received enough inflow to run the household plus the garden and pool.
> And I'm not in Brisbane but further north with a higher rainfall on average.
> How are you going to organise rainwater tanks for high rise apartments?
> I'd be genuinely interested in how you would ensure Brisbane has plenty of water.  Ditto Adelaide.
> .




Hang on a minute! I was refering to drinking water. Go back and have a look. Now your infering I'm talking about water in general. There is no way rain water will be enough for a garden and pool, especially if the pool is uncovered. Is your pool uncovered? I notice very few pools are covered, and this is one simple way to stop heaps of water loss. Covered pools have almost no water loss, and infact, water generally has to be pumped out regularly, as well as much less chemical use do to the softness of rain water. My pool hasn't needed topping up for years.

I happen to live in a community where everyone collects their rainwater, have done for 100 years, and uses it for drinking and showers. Most people have 50 000 litres or so storage and very rarely run out. No where near as much rain as Brisbane gets either.

Collecting rain water would be a simple solution to a lot of our water problems, but once again, until the water actually runs out, I don't think many will use their common sense. 

I suspect it's a vanity thing with city people. No one wants big decent sized tanks in their yards, whereas in the bush, people are proud of their big tanks and they look good. It's something to brag about.


----------



## MeekTrader (11 February 2011)

I'd say the availability of space/land for tanks plays a large part in those attitudes


----------

