• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

OIL- Good business or RAPE?

RoperAB

Well-known member
X said:
RoperAB said:
Why cant the American tax payer in the form of a government owned corporation that would compete with the private corporations, not be allowed to get into the market?
That's not the way we do things. If you want to get in the energy business, buy stock, start an E&P company, whatever. You have that freedom.

Government is a model for inefficiency. Just too burdened with lazy bums to ever work right. The US Postal Service couldn't even generate a return over costs with a near monopoly. The service and value received sucked.

If government enterprises worked the way YOU wanted it to, we wouldn't have UPS or Fedex.

This country is built on the principle of encouraging free enterprise. Not stifling it with government competition.

Haha Well im in no position on my own to start an oil company! If I was do you think the price of retail gas would really matter to me?
As far as buying haliburton stock this is not going to affect the price of retail gas which is what is not only killing farmers and ranchers but every other small business. These high gas prices are not long term sustainable for our economies.

As far as government corporations you should research the Alberta Treasury Bank as what can be acomplished.
As far as your postal system goes honestly im not really familiar with it. However does UPS and Fedex handle regular mail or do they just handle the "gravy runs" that pay better?

Okay you said "Government is a model for inefficiency. Just too burdened with lazy bums to ever work right."

My reply is I think The US Military and NASA are great example of what the public sector can do.

Look at Donald Rumsfelds history in the private sector of turning companies around. Make him CEO of the the damn thing and it will work!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
NASA a great example? You've got to be kidding? You forgot to figure in the COST in determining that NASA is a success. I can almost guarantee you that had we given Halliburton the money that NASA has squandered, we would have cities on the Moon and a man on Mars by now.

The private sector is what works in this country. Government only stands in the way. Roper, I really have trouble understanding you on this issue. I almost always agree with you, but on this one you slide over to the liberal, socialistic viewpoint. Why is that?

I guess it's just because of the price of fuel that you condemn the private sector in this case? At least, that's my impression from reading your posts. I try not to let things like that change my principles. There are things that I believe in and I don't change my beliefs just because it costs me more money.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I can almost guarantee you that had we given Halliburton the money that NASA has squandered, we would have cities on the Moon and a man on Mars by now.


and Dick Cheney would be King!!!! No thanks!

A funny.....the Fed Bldg, officially called the Cheney Bldg, in Casper is known as " the big Dick" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Well, kola, don't laugh to long or too loudly.
Wyomingites have a terrific sense of humor...and they think a lot
of Dick Cheney.

Just to set the record straight.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
The problem with the industry the way it is right now is that #1 We need more refinery capibility. It takes huge amounts of money to build a refinery. This is not something that small business can do. The ones who have the deep pockets to do it seem to be already in the oil industry and why would they put money into something that was only going to lower the retail price if gasoline and cut into their profits?
Whatever the reason nobody in the private sector is addressing the problem.
There has to be something that can be done about it. Arent you sick of being held hostage by high energy costs?
If I was in power I would do everything I could to promote and encourage investment in more refinerys. As far as I know this hasnt been done yet.
But if that failed and I couldnt get the investment then I think its time to start a corporation that would fill the void and compete in the free market. Example to get this company started the government would probable have to own most of the stock of the company. However as time and demand goes on this stocks could eventually be sold off if so desired but I would think it would be a good idea for the time being for the government to have the majority of shares so it can maintain control and direction of the company. Plus it would make money for the government. Gosh almighty Haliburton made more money last year than the whole GDP of Canada.
Who owns this industry? A select few rich ba$tards? The average Joe has no money to buy oil stocks on his own. Why not allow the public a chance to get into the industry and bennifit from it in the form of a lower tax burden, lower fuel cost and a strong economy because of this public owned corporation?
I think this can work because it has worked before on a smaller scale. Look at the UFA <retail hardware store chain>in Alberta.
Plus not only would this reduce the retail price of fuel but there is tons of money in the industry. What kind of a return is your government getting right now on its SS investments? 2%? Why not invest this money into something that will not only do a service for the country but also make money in the process?
Look im not a liberal. Its just that I believe its time government got off its butt and started being more into capitalism instead of being lazy and depending on tax revenue. If our current politicians have no business experience then I think its time we fired these trust fund babys and get some real Ronald Rumsfeld types in there. We need people who have actually done things and accomplished something on there own!
Not guys who married money or who were born super rich. Like there is no way you will ever convince me that Bush Jr. or Al Gore are the brightest and best that America can produce. Its the same deal in Canada. We have to demand better than what we are getting in the form of leadership but thats another thread.
Problem #2 is that we need to be thinking of North American Trade. Not world trade with countrys that have different enviromental, cultural and economic principals.
We have the oil up here and you guys have the capital and the market. Dont you think its time you stopped funding the very people over in the middle east that hate and want to destroy us?
Why is it okay for China to have government owned corporations competeing in the American market but not an American government owned <started> corporation?
Here is the problem. Middle East oil can be produced at $5 a barrel. Our oil costs $15. We are not going to get the investment in North American oil as long as a Saudi outfit could flood our market with $5 a barrel oil until our companies are bankrupt and then they stick us with $70 a barrel oil! You have to take out this threat or we are always going to be dependant on Middle east oil.
Even Bush said the other day what I have been saying all along.The main reason America is still occuping Iraq is because if it withdraws the terrorist will get control of Iraqs oil and use the money from it to fund terrorism against the rest of the world.
Why not destroy the oil fields and comer home? Then they are like Africa and dont matter anymore. Destroy the oilfields and you essentialy disarm them. We dont need there friggen oil and we would have lower energy prices if they didnt have a drop. We would also be a whole lot more peaceful. You cant fight an eastern war with western values. Bomb old hell out of them like they have never been bombed before. Screw nation building!
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
You know the more I think about this the more I believe im right.
Isnt it left wing for us to expect that government cant support itself through any other means except taxation<government welfare>?
You tax what you want to discourage. Example tobbacco, alcohol.
The more you tax wealth the more you discourage people from createing wealth.
A REAL Conservative would expect its government to have some creative drive and to get off its butt and create some of its own wealth instead of just taxing and reaping the rewards of the hard work of others like you and me.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Faster horses said:
I listened to some conversation on talk radio yesterday. Sounds like the Saudi's are going to step in and help us out. Why? Because in the past when we had an oil shortage (although we really don't have an oil shortage because of stored oil) it hurts them in the long run, because we start talking 'alternative energy.' They don't want us to think of alternative energy because it will hurt their economy. Also, the prediction was for oil to be in the $40-$50 range before long.

Are you happy with $40 to $50 a barrel oil? Im not! There is no friggen need of this. Oil should be $15 a barrel and thats for our own oil. Suadi oil is profitable at $5 a barrel!
I think that just goes to show how far we have gone that we are starting to think of $40 a barrel oil as being cheap!

Was reading some old post, how much difference a couple years makes :shock: Use to the debate was over $40 a barrel oil. :shock:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
What a difference a president makes. :lol:

Radioactive Oilfield Waste Dumped in Bakken

A piece of the nuclear world lurks in oilfields, and it has reared its unwanted head in the Williston Basin of North Dakota, with reports continuing of illegally dumped oilfield byproducts from the Bakken Shale that contain naturally occurring radioactive waste.

The latest incident may be the state's biggest dumping of radioactive oil filter socks, which are use to strain liquids during oil production, according to state officials. In North Dakota, this material usually is trucked in sealed vehicles to other states, such as Colorado and Montana, that are able to handle the materials, which North Dakota is unable to do.

The material is designated as technically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (TENORM) waste. The North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) is expected to issue regulations in June that would track generation, storage, transportation and disposal.

NDDH is handling the cleanup and response to the latest incident. "Current state law and administrative rules require that all TENORM waste be disposed of appropriately and violations can result in fines," said spokesman Scott Radig.

A spokeswoman for the state Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) that oversees oil and gas operations said the agency is aware of the recent incident and it is working with the health department to determine the best ways to combat illegal dumping.

"It is a difficult issue right now because we don't have proper disposal site in North Dakota, so it [the TENORM] has to be trucked out of state," said Alison Ritter. "For the most part, the majority of the state's operators are doing this right. There is a small minority doing it inappropriately."

The onus now falls on the NDDH to enforce rules in the oilfields.

"There is a level of radioactivity that is above 5 pico periods/gram [of radium] that is not allowed to be disposed of in North Dakota," Ritter said.

http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/97690-radioactive-oilfield-waste-dumped-in-bakken

Investigation: Bakken Oil Waste Threatens Montana Farms And Local Water Supply

The 200 or so people who call Lindsay, Mont., home likely never imagined they would find themselves in the middle of an environmental battle fueled by radioactive waste. But that’s exactly what happened in the small community of farmers and ranchers in Eastern Montana after a local farmer opened a landfill and started collecting naturally occurring radioactive waste materials generated by the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota.

Known as Oaks Disposal Services landfill, the dump site is the creation of Ross Oakland and his wife, Tara. The duo are Montana-based farmers who have been growing wheat, peas and lentils on their farm in Lindsay since 1992.

In an interview with MintPress, Oakland said he got the idea to build a landfill on his property after an oil company began to drill on land adjacent to his farmland. Oakland, who worked as a driller in the 1980s after graduating from high school, noticed the oil company didn’t have a pit to dump the waste materials, so he asked a “company man” what was being done with the materials.

“Back when I was a driller, everything went into a pit on location and (we) just buried (the materials),” Oakland recalled. “Now they are environmentally friendly.”

Inspired by the new “environmentally friendly” approach Oakland said the oil companies were taking, he called Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality and went through a two-year approval process for the state’s first, and currently only, Class II Solid Waste Management System.

Open since June 3, 2013, Oakland’s 23.1-acre landfill accepts solid waste primarily related to the exploration and production of oil and gas. This includes sludge, drill cuttings, filter socks and pit liners, among other materials.

Oakland stressed that Montana allows almost anyone to operate a landfill, as long as the dump site is built correctly and can withstand naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) that contains no more than 30 picocuries of radiation per gram. Picocuries are how the intensity of radioactive material is measured.

Oakland noted that North Dakota landfills don’t accept any NORM waste that is over 5 picocuries per gram, which is why the waste is being sent to states such as Montana.

To ensure that the waste material doesn’t seep into the ground and, more importantly, the town’s water supply, Oakland said he created a “state-of-the-art facility” that includes two “top of the line” liners, an 18-inch layer of gravel, four monitoring walls around the perimeter of the landfill, a basal layer, as well as a leachate solution system. MintPress was unable to independently verify this.

Some of Oakland’s neighbors say they are concerned about the toxic materials being brought into their town from North Dakota. They claim that Oakland’s landfill is ruining the local land, air and water, and it’s only a matter of time before disaster strikes, which could result in a polluted water supply or health effects similar to those reported after prolonged exposure to radioactive and toxic waste materials in WWII-era Hiroshima.

Given that the landfill has already spilled or overflowed at least three times, Montana could be in the beginning stages of its own environmental and health disaster.



Ticking time bomb

“Robert” and his wife, “Sarah,” live a few miles from Oakland’s property and about 10 miles from the landfill, on a homestead Robert’s family has owned since 1915. They, along with Robert’s sister, “Meghan,” told MintPress they are concerned about the landfill, since they are downwind and downstream from the waste site. They also say the dump was built on top of an aquifer — a claim Oakland denies.

But according to a report from the state of Montana’s Ground-Water Data Task Force, there is some type of an aquifer below most of the state, especially in the eastern portion of the state where Lindsay is located.

The family has raised their concerns about the landfill with various officials, including President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as local officials. They grow wheat and raise cattle on their land, which contributes to their pollution concerns. As Meghan explained to MintPress, the agencies have all told them the same thing: nothing can be done until a disaster occurs and there’s a “smoking gun” in the form of a massive spill or the water supply is highly contaminated.

“The thing is,” Meghan said, “with this kind of stuff, there is no disaster immediately. Disaster occurs after it is way too late.”

Although the family appears to be the only people in town complaining about the landfill, Robert, Sarah and Meghan said they are fighting to protect the entire town from the toxic materials, since the water in the town leads directly to Deer Creek, then on to Yellowstone, before reaching the Missouri River. And as Sarah pointed out, the creek also runs by at least three schools along the way.

The family told MintPress that they are the only ones in town willing to publicly oppose the landfill because Oakland has paid off some people in town to keep their mouths shut. They claim that the few people in this small town who haven’t been paid off are too afraid of retaliation from Oakland to speak out.

Sources in the community said Oakland has even bought the Dawson County Commissioner’s support, citing a Feb. 16, 2014 article in the Ranger-Review, which reported that Oakland and his wife donated $50,000 to a restroom project at the Dawson County Fairgrounds.

Oakland told the Ranger-Review, a local newspaper, that he was tired of all the negativity surrounding the oilfield, adding that the money he donated for the bathroom project is “oil-generated money,” which he said proves that his landfill is good for the community.

Meghan said one woman shared with her privately in a message on a social media network that she was scared to publicly oppose the landfill because she doesn’t want her business to suffer.

The afflicted family’s main contention about the disposal site is that Oakland insists that the oil industry’s presence in the community will be for everyone’s benefit, but the level of radioactive material in Oakland’s pit is higher than the radioactive material found in Hiroshima, Japan, according to Robert.

MintPress asked the state’s Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock to comment on the issue, since some residents have expressed concern about the landfill. Bullock’s Deputy Communications Director Mike Wessler told MintPress that the governor is involved in this issue, and he is working closely with the state’s director of environmental quality to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken. But in the end, Wessler recommended we contact the DEQ directly.

The family said this kind of response has been one of the biggest obstacles in their battle to prevent Oakland from continuing to accept toxic and radioactive material in his landfill. They said they are constantly sent from one agency to another, with various officials telling them there is nothing they can do about it because Oakland was issued a license.

But the family is also concerned about how Oakland was issued the license in the first place, as well as the environmental problems associated with the landfill.

Shady dealing?

While the Montana DEQ maintains that the “Oaks Landfill application has been thoroughly reviewed, approved, and is licensed to operate as a Solid Waste Management System, which is currently in compliance with all applicable laws and rules,” the family says they believe there are several disconcerting facets of Oakland’s landfill approval process.

One such facet is that while the state’s DEQ is required to notify the public about a proposed landfill site and allow 30 days for public comments, the family said the public was notified via a small print ad in the back of the Ranger-Review on Dec. 27, 2012. The public comment period ended on Jan. 21, 2013. In addition, the public comment meetings were held in Helena, Mont., which is about seven hours from the disposal site.

The commissioners signed off on the landfill site on Feb. 2, 2013 and gave approval for the oil companies to use the county roads on Feb. 11, 2013, even though Oakland’s license wasn’t issued until Feb. 14, 2013 — the same day that the DEQ sent an urgent certified letter to Dr. Joseph Leal, Chief Health Officer of Montana’s Dawson County, to sign off on the landfill.

Sarah knows Dr. Leal. She said she asked him why he agreed to sign off on the creation of such a landfill. She claims he informed her that he didn’t know anything about the landfill or the type of material that would be dumped in the site, and that he was told that if he didn’t sign the document immediately, he would have to go defend himself in court.

When MintPress attempted to contact Leal, his receptionist said he had no interest in commenting.

In an email to MintPress, Chris Saeger, spokesman for the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, said that the state’s “standards for protecting human health and the environment are only defined by laws passed by the legislature and Congress. Based on those laws and our staff’s thorough review of the incident you’ve mentioned, the facility is in compliance with DEQ’s standards.”

Saeger stressed that “our response to public concerns—as detailed above—can only be based on the legal authority we’ve been given by the state legislature.”

What Saeger is referring to is the fact that according to a regulatory determination issued in 1988, oil waste is not considered to be hazardous material for disposal purposes. Based on this, Montana’s DEQ can’t legally investigate the landfill further because under state and federal law the material is not considered to be hazardous. In other words, Oakland’s landfill is treated more as a regular garbage dump than a radioactive waste facility.

Since the family started to push back against the landfill, Robert and Sarah said that trucks hauling the radioactive oil waste have begun to travel on the county road located about 50 feet from their home, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Knowing that the family is opposed to the landfill, Robert and Sarah said the truckers often honk their horns when they pass by their home.

Additional environmental concerns

Because the oil waste is not tarped down, it flies out of the trucks as they make their way to the landfill. Robert said the truckers began to spray magnesium chloride on the roads to keep the dust down. Oakland estimates that he spent about $9,000 to spray this chemical on the roads in 2013, which the Centers for Disease Control say contains poisonous additives that are known to cause organ dysfunction.

In addition to the family’s concerns about the dust and magnesium chloride sprayed on the road outside their home, they say they have recorded at least four spills at the landfill so far. The first allegedly occurred on Sept. 19, 2013 and the most recent on Jan. 19, 2014.

When MintPress asked Oakland about the alleged oil spills, he said his landfill site has never overflowed or spilled and that Robert, Sarah and Meghan are “bad people” no one in town listens to. He further claimed that the Montana DEQ has stopped listening to their “unfounded” complaints as well.

When MintPress asked Saeger, of the DEQ, if there was any truth to Oakland’s claims that this particular family’s concerns were unfounded, he said “the owner of Oaks Disposal Service (Oakland) does not speak for the Montana DEQ.” He added that the agency has “undertaken a very thorough inspection of this facility in response to concerns raised by the [affected] family.”

Saeger added that the DEQ has received complaints about two confirmed spills. He explained that one of the complaints was resolved through the landfill owner’s clean-up, while the other confirmed complaint of a spill is in the process of being resolved.

Because a third complaint “contained incomplete information,” Saeger said the DEQ wasn’t able to respond to it. The agency, he said, has not received a complaint about a fourth spill.

Since MintPress spoke to the DEQ, Meghan told MintPress about a fifth spill that occurred around the first week of March 2014.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/bakken-oil-waste-threatens-montana-farms-local-water-supply/186174/
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
He has an agenda...to heck with the truth!...could be said about Bush also.!


Al Gore NEVER said he invented the internet. Funny...Rep's accuse Dem's of using spin....and yet you Rep's believe spin !! Amazing!!

He's spot on on the global warming issue.....look out your door at the drought, the fires..here the hurricanes, tornado activity..all on the upswing. Yeah it's partly the normal cycle of the world as a living thing....but exacerbated by all the crap in the enviroment!!

Anyhoo...I gotta get off this computer and get my arse out to mowing grass for the next 6 hrs!!!

Some Klassic Kola in this thread.

Hey Kola, did ya see these headlines:

Where have all the hurricanes gone? 'Mysterious lack of activity' this year despite widespread predictions of a very active season (2013)

Snow comes a month early with SEVEN states due to drop into freezing conditions (Sept 2014)

:lol:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
She also biatches about the cost of filling up her F350, but claims Algore is "spot on",concerning global warming. Can you say "hypocrite"?

She'd be dangerous if her elevator went all the way to the top.
 

Mike

Well-known member
What's funny about this thread is that it was written well before they knew that Sarah Palin took on the oil companies in Alaska and straightened them out.

Imagine that! Someone comes along and does what the liberals want them to do and they hate her for it........................

See the irony????????????????

After reading back over it, OT & Kola must feel like full blown idiots!!!!! :roll:

Politifact -
Palin sought more taxes and more development from oil companies

By Alexander Lane on Monday, September 1st, 2008 at 12:00 a.m.

In her first speech as Sen. John McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin claimed a credential that might resonate with a nation blanching at the cost of gasoline — a record of taking on Big Oil.
"Along with fellow reformers in the great state of Alaska, as governor, I've stood up to the old politics as usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good-old-boy network," Palin said, speaking to a crowd in Dayton, Ohio, after McCain introduced her to the nation on Aug. 29, 2008. "When oil and gas prices went up so dramatically and the state revenues followed with that increase, I sent a large share of that revenue directly back to the people of Alaska. And we are now — we're now embarking on a $40-billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence."

We've already checked her claim that she sent "a large share of that revenue directly back to the people of Alaska." We ruled it True.

So here we'll examine whether she really stood up to the big oil companies, some of the most influential players in Alaska's political scene.

Palin was sworn in as governor on Dec. 4, 2006. Over the course of 2007, she fought to raise taxes on oil companies. Alaska gets about 85 percent of its state revenue from oil taxes, and as fuel prices skyrocketed, Palin complained the state wasn't getting its share of the windfall. She successfully pushed for a law that raised taxes on oil profits to 25 percent from 22.5, winning passage in the State Legislature in November 2007. The increase amounted to an estimated $1.6-billion annually more for the state.

Oil companies had opposed the increase, with executives saying it would discourage them from investing in the state. BP Alaska president Doug Suttles said after the Legislature passed the increase: "I can only hope that once the impact of this legislation is clear, the administration and the Legislature will revisit the issue."

So yes, with respect to taxes, Palin stood up to big oil companies.

Palin has also sparred with big oil companies over who gets to build a pipeline to carry natural gas to market from Alaska's North Slope. The fields there have enormous gas reserves, but so far they have remained largely untapped due to the lack of a pipeline. Palin's predecessor, Frank Murkowski, supported a contract between the state and BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil to develop the pipeline. Palin opposed that, promising to consider other companies.

Indeed, after she was elected she solicited other bids, and ended up supporting a proposal by TransCanada Corp. to build a 1,715-mile pipeline down the Alaska Highway and through Canada. Exxon, ConocoPhillips and BP all criticized Palin's move to give the job to the Calgary-based company.

"She has taken an independent position and she has been protective of state sovereignty," said Gerald McBeath, political science professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

So in the pipeline battle as well, Palin took on big oil.

Palin also continued efforts Murkowski had launched to take back leases the state had awarded to Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips in the giant Point Thomson oil and gas field. Alaska officials were annoyed that the companies had not developed the field, which would boost state revenue. The companies said the fields posed technical challenges.

In that respect as well, Palin stood up to big oil.

We should note that Palin has been far friendlier to the oil industry than environmentalists would like to see the governor be. "She's definitely been very supportive of any increased oil and gas development," said Patricia Rolfe, Alaska regional representative of the Sierra Club. "In general, it's business as usual for oil companies in Alaska."

Palin has supported the controversial idea of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and has sued the federal government to oppose listing the polar bear as an endangered species, which would curtail energy development.

But she didn't claim to have opposed big oil companies on everything — she merely claimed to have stood up to them. And that she did, with respect to taxes, Point Thomson leases and the North Slope pipeline. We find her claim to be True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/01/sarah-palin/palin-sought-more-taxes-and-more-development-from-/
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
I've bumped a lot of threads over the years and can honestly say that when re-reading them, my thoughts THEN still represent my thoughts today. Yeah, I've changed my mind about the wisdom of some of our foreign interventions, but have always been clear that presented with similar circumstances today I'd likely make the same choices as I did then.

I bet many others here feel the same when reading their posted thoughts from many years ago.

Then there's OT. :lol:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Allah doesn't love him either:

Qur'an 2:190—"Allah does not love those who exceed the limits."
Qur'an 3:32—"Allah does not love the unbelievers."
Qur'an 4:36—"Allah does not love him who is proud, boastful."
Qur'an 8:58—"Allah does not love the treacherous. "
Qur'an 28:77—"Allah does not love the mischief-makers."
Qur'an 57:23—"Allah does not love any arrogant boaster."
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Mike said:
Allah doesn't love him either:

Qur'an 2:190—"Allah does not love those who exceed the limits."
Qur'an 3:32—"Allah does not love the unbelievers."
Qur'an 4:36—"Allah does not love him who is proud, boastful."
Qur'an 8:58—"Allah does not love the treacherous. "
Qur'an 28:77—"Allah does not love the mischief-makers."
Qur'an 57:23—"Allah does not love any arrogant boaster."

He's had a bad week. :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top