Newspaper column: Proposed environmental bills would kill jobs

Workers frack a well in North Dakota. (Reuters photo via R-J)

Workers frack a well in North Dakota. (Reuters photo via R-J)

With delusions of saving the planet from catastrophic warming, a Las Vegas assemblyman is offering up a futile gesture in the form of a bill to ban fracking in Nevada.

According to media accounts Democratic Assemblyman Justin Watkins has stated fracking causes earthquakes, contaminates water, pollutes the air and basically creates an eyesore.

His Assembly Bill 159 would amend state law by adding: “A person shall not engage in hydraulic fracturing in this State. As used in this section, ‘hydraulic fracturing’ means the process of pumping fluid into or under the surface of the ground to create fractures in the rock to facilitate the production or recovery of oil or gas.”

First, any earthquakes associated with fracking were not caused by fracking but by pumping fracking waste into injection wells, because the environmentalists object to leaving what is mostly water and sand on the surface.

As for contaminating groundwater even Obama’s EPA had to stretch beyond credulity to conclude there is a “chance” of pollution. In its report on the topic the EPA scientists said fracking “can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances,” but “the scientific evidence is insufficient to support estimates of the frequency of contamination.” They said the instances of contamination were small in comparison to the vast number of fracked wells across the nation. Almost nonexistent is more accurate.

Oil and natural gas wells, with or without fracking, produce oil and gas, the burning of which releases some carbon. We grant that, but fracking has actually cut the nation’s carbon output since natural gas burns cleaner than coal when used in power generation.

As for being an eyesore, modern fracking and drilling techniques eliminate the need to drill hundreds of wells in close proximity to hit small pockets of oil, such as can be seen in Bakersfield, Calif. Instead these pockets are tapped by drilling one well and then drilling out horizontally.

It would appear Watkins is under the misconception that fracking is some sort of recent untested endeavor.

The first fracking patent was issued in 1866. It used nitroglycerin explosions to fracture formations. The first commercial application of hydraulic fracking took place in 1949. In many oil and gas fields a vast majority of wells are fracked at one time or another, either initially or later to prolong the productive life of the well.

In the 1980s Texas oilman George Mitchell combined the techniques of fracking and horizontal drilling to develop the Barnett Shale formation in North Texas. This has resulted in a boom in natural gas production and a decline in oil prices, creating countless jobs and growing the economy.

In 2014 the Nevada Division of Minerals Administrator Rich Perry released Nevada’s 20-page revised rules on fracking that require groundwater testing before and after drilling, pressure testing of equipment, notifications to landowners before fracking begins and abiding by strict engineering standards. More than adequate precautions.

Though there have been a few fracked wells in the Elko vicinity in recent years, there reportedly are none ongoing at this time in Nevada.

But there is potential with the Chainman Shale formation, which lies largely in an 80- to 100-mile-plus radius around Duckwater — including almost all of White Pine County, major portions of Nye, Lincoln, Elko, Eureka and Lander counties, as well as parts of a couple of counties in Utah.

The formation is believed to be rich in oil, though most lies 2 to 5 miles underground, making drilling expensive when oil prices are fairly low — largely due to ample supplies created by fracking.

A fracking ban just might kill a number of potential jobs in Nevada and deprive the state economy and the state tax coffers of revenue. All for no discernible reason.

As if the fracking ban were not enough, another Las Vegas Assemblyman — Chris Brooks, who has worked in the solar panel installation business for years — has introduced legislation that would greatly increase the percentage of electric power sold in the state that must be generated by renewable energy sources — known as the renewable portfolio standard (RPS).

Current law requires 25 percent renewable energy by 2025, but Assembly Bill 206 would increase this to 50 percent by 2030 and fully 80 percent by 2040.

Such a standard would drive up power costs, kill jobs and increase the risk of brownouts and blackouts resulting from intermittent generation when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow — all for the sake of some nebulous superstition that reducing carbon output will save the planet from catastrophic warming.

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Advertisements

49 comments on “Newspaper column: Proposed environmental bills would kill jobs

  1. deleted says:

    Crap.

    Thomas please explain how “Obamas” EPA concluded that the fracking chemicals used by frackers, which are not disclosed by frackers because they claim the information as a state secret, could only possibly lead to groundwater contamination?

    I’ll tell you; they couldn’t.

    And here’s a detailed piece as to why they couldn’t; first because “Obamas EPA did not WANT to conclude that frackng caused groundwater contamination because Obamas administration actually supported fracking (damn socialist muslm anyway) and so, rather than complete the study which showed fracking caused groundwater contamination, “Obamas EPA turned the study over to a state, which had a gigantic interest in finding tha there was no threat of groundwater contamination (the state actually turned the study over to a fracking company to complete, which I’m sure posed no conflict of interest for them) and then fired the guy from the EPA who was actually doing the study.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/

  2. Rincon says:

    “First, any earthquakes associated with fracking were not caused by fracking but by pumping fracking waste into injection wells, because the environmentalists object to leaving what is mostly water and sand on the surface.” From a Yale University study:

    “In an analysis of more than 1,000 chemicals in fluids used in and created by hydraulic fracturing (fracking), Yale School of Public Health researchers found that many of the substances have been linked to reproductive and developmental health problems, and the majority had undetermined toxicity due to insufficient information.”

    “While they lacked definitive information on the toxicity of the majority of the chemicals, the team members analyzed 240 substances and concluded that 157 of them — chemicals such as arsenic, benzene, cadmium, lead, formaldehyde, chlorine, and mercury — were associated with either developmental or reproductive toxicity.” http://news.yale.edu/2016/01/06/toxins-found-fracking-fluids-and-wastewater-study-shows

    Yeah Thomas. Mostly water and sand.

  3. Rincon says:

    The U.S. has 1.5% of the world’s oil reserves, but consumes 22% of the pumped oil, and we’re anxious to get it out of the ground as fast as possible. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/05/gerry-connolly/gerry-connolly-says-us-owns-3-percent-worlds-oil-c/

    The next generation will soon enough say, “What were they thinking?” I know the answer.

  4. Rincon says:

    “…all for the sake of some nebulous superstition that reducing carbon output will save the planet from catastrophic warming.” From NASA:

    “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.” https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Read it quick. Trump will be taking it down soon.

    Yeah, Thomas. Nebulous superstition. Can you post Goldilocks and the Three Bears too? I haven’t read that one in a while.

  5. Steve says:

    Climate changes, has changed and will always change. Moreover, climate changes no matter what humans do, have done or will do. In fact climate change has occurred far longer than humans have existed on the planet.
    Climate doesn’t give one whit about human activity, it will change no matter what humans do.

    This is not to say humans don’t have some kind of effect on the ever changing climate, but there is no consensus on what amount of effect human activity does have. Only that human activity has (some) effect on the ever changing climate. After a while you lose impact with all those talking points.

    Perhaps “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” is a better choice for your reading material, Rincon.

  6. Steve says:

    Sorry, not Wiki…Politifact.

  7. Steve says:

    Remember when “Peak Oil” was supposed to happen in the 1970’s?

    Now its been moved off to sometime in the future…..

  8. deleted says:

    Thankfully, Trumps EPA has decided that those billion dollar mostly foreign corporations won’t have to be bothered worrying about whether, after they’ve extracted billions of dollars worth of minerals that belong to the American public, and taken those billions of dollars back to their shareholders, the American soil they’ve extracted them from, is so polluted, that American taxpayers, and the American public, have to deal with the toxic sluge they’ve left.

    Whew! That was a close one.

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article134869189.html

  9. Steve says:

    Last year, an EPA cleanup team triggered a 3-million gallon spill of contaminated water from Colorado’s inactive Gold King mine. The accident tainted rivers in three states with heavy metals including arsenic and lead and highlighted the problem posed by tens of thousands of mine sites across the nation.

    laugh

  10. deleted says:

    Never trust a private company, out to make a dollar, to do anything without lying cheating, or stealing. (Or screwing up)

    https://www.law360.com/articles/874091/contractor-says-epa-was-at-helm-amid-gold-king-spill

  11. deleted says:

    And of course, the original mine operator, a private company, out to lie cheat and steal, so as to make a dollar, was responsible for all that toxic poison to begin with. Then the lying cheating stealing company “convinced” an industry dominated regulator to let it take what everyone knew were insufficient actions to protect the public, so the lying cheating stealing company could walk away, pockets bulging from sales of American taxpayer owned gold, back to it’s country of origin, leaving American citizens, to deal with the consequences of their theft.

    https://www.law360.com/articles/810196/colo-enviro-policies-set-stage-for-gold-king-spill-nm-says

  12. Perhaps, EPA was at the helm. Perhaps, EPA let those chemicals be stored.

  13. deleted says:

    Perhaps not?

    Perhaps the EPA wasn’t called in until 2014? When the EPA was first called in by the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety?

    And only after more than 5 years of doing nothing other than revolving the bond of the mining company because of course, they didn’t want to pay for the disaster the had created.

    https://www.usbr.gov/docs/goldkingminereport.pdf

  14. Steve says:

    Changed the topic from fracking to mining.

    Nicely don, Patrick. Nice done.

  15. Rincon says:

    “Remember when “Peak Oil” was supposed to happen in the 1970’s?” A thirty year rescue and Steve thinks it’s good for all time. He conveniently also decided that, “Climate doesn’t give one whit about human activity, it will change no matter what humans do.” A bald assumption based on….what? Of course, your children and grandchildren have to worry about it, not you. You’re urging us to gamble their future based on essentially feelings. Free speech allows you to say the 97% of climatologists are wrong. Unfortunately, it can’t change that they’re probably right.

    As for the so called EPA screwup, it is a single anecdote. Not a very powerful argument in any case.

    Deleted never specified mining, Steve. He mentioned minerals – of which oil is one. You brought up mining.

  16. Steve says:

    “A bald assumption based on….what?”

    Umm millions of years of changing climate with no humans to force it? (unless, of course, you are one of those religious fanatics who believe the planet was created just to support human life!)
    Every conclusion you reach based on that is hype at it’s best. I hope you enjoy the horror. It lost its effect on me long ago.

    The EPA screw up is funny and points to what happens when those who don’t do the work try and tell those who do the work, how to do the work.

    Oil is not a mineral, it is a hydrocarbon. Patrick loves to change subjects where he cannot argue the facts. (You do this too)

    Though, this time, not so nicely done.

  17. deleted says:

    Rincon the EPA is just a scapegoat. They didn’t even make the “last” error that led to the spill; it was a private contractor.

    That mine produced lots of gold for the Canadian company that owned it, and after they sucked it dry, they abandoned it, with it’s toxic water “plugged” up in some mine shaft that they were obligated to treat in a waste plant. But of course, after all the gold got gotten, they abandoned their obligation, declared bankruptcy, and turned the whole mess over to the state which was a party to their thievery (Colorado knew that the company left the mine in a toxic disaster state, leaking poison into the groundwater and after 5 years, of watching the amount grow and grow, decided only THEN to call in the EPA).

    Blaming the EPA for what happened in Colorado is just republicans wanting to get rid of regulations that prevent them from poisoning people.

  18. Rincon says:

    “Umm millions of years of changing climate with no humans to force it?” So, are you saying the fact that climate has changed in the past, although rarely to this degree, proves that humans can’t possibly have any influence on it?

  19. Steve says:

    “climate has changed in the past” is changing, will change and always changes. Is part of what I said.

    Additionally, I said “This is not to say humans don’t have some kind of effect on the ever changing climate, but there is no consensus on what amount of effect human activity does have.”

    You, apparently, refuse to see.

  20. Rincon says:

    What I see is a blithe assumption that the scientists are all wrong with little evidence to support that belief. We’ve been through this before and you have refused to accept anything other than some exact, totally agreed upon figure specifying the amount of warming contributed by humankind. Am I correct?

  21. Steve says:

    What I see, is you ignoring geologic history, Rincon.

    I maintain humans are a part of the environment. As such it is certain humans have an effect on the environment.

    The question I ask and the question not being studied by the worlds climate scientists is to what degree is human activity forcing the change in the ever changing environment.

    I would be perfectly happy with some kind of estimate…but NONE EXISTS BECAUSE NO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ARE BEING DONE!

    How do you expect to gauge any results of changes in human activity if you don’t have a baseline for comparison?

    Worse yet, many of the “consensus of climate scientists” insist AGW will continue to force climate NO MATTER WHAT WE DO for the next 100 YEARS!

    We won’t even be around to know if we did anything at all.
    And, since we don’t know how much effect humans really have on the climate, we simply don’t know if we will have ANY effect in slowing the change in the ever changing climate.

    Adapt or die. It is the only answer. And it can only be done as things change.

  22. deleted says:

    “And the best estimate from the body of peer-reviewed climate science research is that humans are responsible for more than 100% of the global surface warming since 1950, with natural factors probably offsetting a little bit of that with a slight cooling influence. ”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing

  23. Steve says:

    “It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST [global mean surface temperature] from 1951 to 2010.
    This assessment is supported by robust evidence from multiple studies using different methods.”

    This is what the IPCC said.

    The article follows with this:

    “It’s not just “more than half,” it’s also most likely close to 100%. In fact it’s just as likely that humans are responsible for about 160% of the global surface warming since 1950 as it is that we’re only responsible for 50%.”

    Just as likely that we are responsible for 50% ….nice Patrick. Your own link proves the spread is somewhere near 110 points wide!
    This is not an estimate, this is total disagreement in the consensus.

    Remember, the consensus insisted the sun and planets revolved around the earth rather than the Earth orbiting the sun.
    Galileo was the outlier to the consensus in those days.
    He was convicted of heresy. Judith curry is being vilified by media.
    I see similarities. You see perfect proof Galileo was wrong.

  24. Steve says:

    Put another way, Patrick;

    “If all your friends jumped off a bridge then would you too?”

  25. deleted says:

    “The question I ask and the question not being studied by the worlds climate scientists is to what degree is human activity forcing the change in the ever changing environment.

    I would be perfectly happy with some kind of estimate…but NONE EXISTS BECAUSE NO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ARE BEING DONE!”

    ““And the best estimate from the body of peer-reviewed climate science research is that humans are responsible for more than 100% of the global surface warming since 1950, with natural factors probably offsetting a little bit of that with a slight cooling influence. ”

  26. Steve says:

    You OWN LINK shows a ONE HUNDRED TEN POINT SPREAD, Patrick.

    That is NOT AN ESTIMATE, ITS A JOKE!

  27. Steve says:

    “In fact it’s just as likely that humans are responsible for about 160% of the global surface warming since 1950 as it is that we’re only responsible for 50%.”

    WHAT THE FREAK DO YOU NOT GET HERE, Patrick?

  28. deleted says:

    “I would be perfectly happy with some kind of estimate…”

  29. deleted says:

    “but NONE EXISTS “

  30. deleted says:

    “BECAUSE NO SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ARE BEING DONE!”

  31. Steve says:

    You simply refuse to see they told you they are lying to their readers.

    That entire article is debunked by its own statement.

    “In fact it’s just as likely that humans are responsible for about 160% of the global surface warming since 1950 as it is that we’re only responsible for 50%.”

    This statement shows what I say is true, there are no studies being done on this and none are wanted, they want you to hump off the bridge when they tell you to, Patrick. And you will do so, gleefully.

  32. Rincon says:

    There are people that think like you all over who refuse to buy say, homeowners insurance and then face financial ruin when their greatest investment is damaged or destroyed. But their judgement is better than yours because they have a backup plan, such as bankruptcy, living with relatives or having the government care for them if disaster strikes. You have no backup plan at all. You are content that the risk of major catastrophe must be zero, but have no evidence for that opinion. The fact that climate changes naturally is not evidence at all. It only makes any real evidence harder to discern.

    The other problem with your thinking is that you NEED some kind of accurate figure in the first place. I will sometimes decide not to drive in a snowstorm despite the fact that there is no good way to quantify the risk. Your approach dictates that since the risk cannot be accurately quantified, you should ignore whatever risk there is. Lotta dead motorists from that way of thinking.

  33. Steve says:

    You have to KNOW what you are insuring against. There is no guessing allowed.

    You, again, ignore what I said, Rincon. ADAPT, or die. Nature makes that rule. Not me.

    The figure offered in Patrick’s article is is from 50% to 160%. That is a spread of 110 basis points, how you gonna insure based on that? !
    Accurate? how about NOT A JOKE!

    AGAIN, My answer is directed by nature itself, adapt or die.

  34. Rincon says:

    Claiming that we should sit on our hands because we need to study the problem more sounds like a typical cop out by a politician. If I did things that way in my business, I would have failed long time ago. Every time I hire someone, I have to make a decision based on incomplete information, but I make it every time because not acting is far more risky than moving forward.

  35. Steve says:

    Adapting is not sitting on our hands. Adapting is natures way of ensuring species survive. Adapting is real “insurance”.

    Incomplete information is way more than the “information” cited by Patrick. That spread is wider than any broadside on any barn you can find.

  36. Rincon says:

    We sometimes adapt rather than prevent in my profession as well. We call it fire engine medicine.

  37. Steve says:

    If you buy what those 97% of the 37% of the community of published (peer reviewed) who expressed an opinion on AGW say, it is way too late for any prevention, all those climate scientists tell us the damage has been done over the last century and it will take at least 100 to 1000 years to reverse.

    Adapt or die, it is the only answer.

    What? You say you didn’t know that was where they get that 97% figure?

    That comes from believing the political hype.

  38. Rincon says:

    If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. You sound like someone who is 100 lbs overweight and decides that losing the weight already gained will take years, so he might as well keep his same habits, keep gaining weight and hope for medical advances or perhaps adapt by buying a single story home for the day when he won’t be able to climb stairs along with other steps.

    I believe your 100 to 1,000 year figures are also suspect. According to NASA and a variety of other sources, the Earth has already absorbed about 55% of anthropogenic CO2 that we’ve released. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php Some faith in that number is justified because we have two separate methods of estimating this and both agree. One is carbon 14. Fossil fuels have very little compared to the atmosphere, so the ratio of carbon 12 to 14 allows a good estimate of what percentage of atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels. The change in the ratio compared to the change in total C02 allows an estimate of how much is absorbed.

    The second method is more basic and robust. We know approximately how much fossil fuels have been sold and therefore burned, so we know how much CO2 has been released, We also know the volume of the atmosphere. There’s substantially less CO2 in the air now than if none had been absorbed, which agrees with the other estimate.

    You might also want to consider carefully researching that 97% number instead of just taking the words of a bunch of right wing zealots. Skeptical Science does a very thorough rundown of the whole question: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

  39. Steve says:

    Where have you been for the last decade?

    http://www.livescience.com/9281-global-warming-dire-prediction-year-3000.html

    And you really should be doing better research than wikipedia.

    HERE is the source of that false “97%”

    “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
    John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7, Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9”

    “Abstract

    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. ”

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=B3CD7B1FE1E0DF3EAB4457F400B0785D.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org

  40. Rincon says:

    You’re missing the forest for the trees. The first sentences in the conclusion of your link: “The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity.”

    Seems to be supporting my view.

  41. Rincon says:

    Your conclusion that this article is the source of the 97% makes it obvious that you didn’t read the Skeptical Science article (as it is equally obvious that I missed the point of your post at first). They cited 5 separate studies which all reached similar conclusions.

  42. Steve says:

    Allow me to filter out all the chaff so you can see the pertinent point you keep missing.

    We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

    AMONG ABSTRACTS EXPRESSING AN OPINION on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

    You see? 66% of climate scientists don’t express an opinion. This blows the 97% claim out of the water.
    It also tells us no one is studying what the human effects on climate really are, or there would be no 66% of climate scientists expressing no opinion on the subject.

    John Cook IS Skeptical Science. He draws his conclusions from studies just like these.
    Skeptical science is all about bias science, not objective at all.

  43. Rincon says:

    This pretty well sums it up. It’s a review of six independent studies which all conclude that, and I quote, “The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper.” http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    I know, I know. Not good enough. That’s OK Steve. Nothing can change an ossified mind. Nevertheless, why don’t you try to come up with a valid study refuting these results or reaching a very different conclusion? Maybe because it doesn’t exist.

    Your contention that 66% of climate scientists don’t express an opinion stems from your apparent lack of familiarity with scientific papers. Most of these study one specific set of data. For example, a glaciologist might publish a paper describing the volume of ice in a set of glaciers and may say in his introduction that glaciers are receding worldwide and then go into his methods and data. Saying that glaciers are receding would be a neutral statement on anthropogenic climate change since no conclusion about the cause of said recession is mentioned in the article and the author had no compelling reason to do so. That in no way indicates the opinion of the author, so a “neutral” paper can easily be written by an author that strongly believes in anthropogenic climate change.

    What you refuse to acknowledge is that, while a significant percentage of the papers “endorse” anthropogenic climate change in some way, there are almost none that express skepticism. Where are all of these skeptical scientists the Conservatives claim are out there? I know, I know. It’s a massive conspiracy.

    You also conveniently failed to respond to the fact that your own link says, “However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity.”

    And you complain about others changing the subject!

    The evidence is completely overwhelming, but is maligned and ignored by political ideologues much as creationists work fervently to dismiss overwhelming evidence on evolution. Both groups are equally astute.

  44. Steve says:

    Not good enough?

    HA!

    Fully 66% of climate scientists express NO OPINION on AGW, therefore (according to the liberal spin) they ALL FULLY SUPPORT the 37% of climate scientists who DO?

    That’s the same as saying people who don’t vote, automatically support the eventual candidate who gains the majority of the votes cast by a minority of the populace!

    Wow, just wow.

  45. […] that fracking “can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances,” but “the scientific evidence is insufficient to support estimates of the frequency of contamination.” They said the instances of contamination […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s