Forgot your password?

My gut feeling about fracking:

Displaying poll results.
It's just fine for all involved
  1940 votes / 7%
It's mildly bad, but worth the risks
  2651 votes / 10%
Not sure whether risks outweigh benefits
  7557 votes / 31%
The risks clearly outweigh the benefits
  8945 votes / 36%
I'm sharpening my monkeywrench
  3161 votes / 13%
24254 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

My gut feeling about fracking:

Comments Filter:
  • by JoeCommodore (567479) <> on Saturday April 07, 2012 @10:28PM (#39610393) Homepage

    in Battlestar Galactica lingo :-D

  • by HatofPig (904660) <clintonthegeek AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday April 07, 2012 @10:36PM (#39610429) Homepage
    This article [] is definitely worth a read if you want to get past the controversy. The bottom line is that the science is still out, but fracking is at least theoretically not nearly as dangerous as movies like Gasland would have you believe, barring the sort of human error which always ends up causing problems. The shale which is being broken up is far below the waterline, often seperated from the water supply by thick layes of solid rock. Still, I can't say I would want it being done anywhere close to where I live.
    • by Telvin_3d (855514) on Saturday April 07, 2012 @11:29PM (#39610575)

      It's amazing the number of things that are safe if you completely ignore the chance of human error.

      I don't mean to be sarcastic to you specifically but one of the things that sets of all sorts of alarms for me is that the gas companies never talk about what CAN go wrong. It's always nothing WILL go wrong. Honestly, if there were going around talking about how "yes, there are some potential problems but this is how we deal with them" I would have far more faith in the process. Instead we get "it's 100% safe all the time LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".

      • by AxemRed (755470) on Sunday April 08, 2012 @12:59AM (#39610843)
        It's also amazing the number of things that are horribly unsafe if you factor in the chance of human error. Gas companies don't talk about what can go wrong with their work but neither do airlines or construction companies.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08, 2012 @06:04AM (#39611547)

          For airlines and construction companies in most developed countries, there are all sorts of legislation, procedures, reviews, etc. in order to make things safer, including decreasing the threat of human error. These processes correlates well with the low number of accidents or disasters that are observed in the airlines and construction companies. One of the major differencies between airlines and construction companies, and gas companies, is that airlines and construction companies deal with well-understood and established technology and science. Since fracking and the consequences of it is not well-understood, especially in the light of possibly related occurences (air-pollution, groundwater contamination, earthquakes, etc.), a highly conservative approach together with independent and extensive scientific investigation seems like the better option. Finding solid scientific facts that can help determine when fracking is harmless and when it is not seems like the better, safer and ultimately more economic (in terms of environment, human life, damaged buildings, etc.) option.

          • by Teun (17872) on Sunday April 08, 2012 @09:58AM (#39612399) Homepage
            The oil and gas industry understands the risks quite well, after all fracking is being done daily and for many years.

            The recent uproar is caused by the lack of regulation in the US, the Bush Jr. government helped the oil companies by scrapping existing environmental responsibilities and some of the companies used this new freedom at the expense of the local population.

            Human activity always comes with an associated risk, even in a regulated market. But the things that happened because of recent US fracking would be unlikely in a better regulated market like the North Sea.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              Kind of this.

              I'm sure fracking can actually be done in a completely safe way, with well-controlled risks and some aggressive mitigration strategies. But since "we can't stand in the way of business!" has for some reason become a pseudoreligion, apparently this means we should absolutely turn a blind eye to very serious environmental impact concerns - especially as they relate to things like the sustainability of aquifers and drinking water reservoirs (which is what prompted the whole thing with GasLand in t

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by godglike (643670)
              "better regulated market like the North Sea"

              Seriously? The North Sea, split between famously cooperative countries like Britain, Holland, Germany, Norway, is better regulated than the interior of the USA?

              You guys are in serious trouble.

              • "better regulated market like the North Sea"

                Seriously? The North Sea, split between famously cooperative countries like Britain, Holland, Germany, Norway, is better regulated than the interior of the USA?

                You guys are in serious trouble.

                Yes, we are.

              • by Chrisje (471362)

                Actually, one of the reasons the EU and the North Sea are such heavily regulated territories is because of the famously uncooperative nations you'll find there. They do an enormous amount of bitching, whining, political wheeling and dealing, vetoing, debating and in-fighting before getting to any kind of agreement, and I dare say that's a better model than the Gung-ho, can-do approach US entities take to things at times.

                There are some solid reasons why the Gulf of Mexico oil spill happened in the Gulf of Me

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08, 2012 @06:34AM (#39611607)

          Actually, in both Airlines and construction companies the % chances of most risks are VERY well known and deviations from those statistics will cause investigations. And, if the investigations come up with anything, a new procedure or policy will be created and implemented, via either the WCB or FAA.

          The problem with the oil industry is that they "assume" nothing will go wrong and then do everything in their power to hide any side-effects when something does (so all we hear about are the really big screw-ups).

          Construction is probably the highest risk of the bunch to human life, but anyone working has some basic idea of what that risk is and whether it is worth doing it and what equipment can be used to reduce that risk. What are the risk factors for frakking? What percentage chance does each one have? What body will be responsible to ensure the risk levels staff at acceptable levels? Who will be monitoring surface and water conditions before, during, and after to ensure no permanent damage is done? Who is going to pay for damage that could occur years after the process is done?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Tuan121 (1715852)

            The problem with the oil industry is that they "assume" nothing will go wrong

            Oh come now. You are saying they assume nothing will go wrong? If for absolutely no other reason, they would want to make every assurance that nothing does go wrong or their product is lost and massive investments go to waste.

            Do you think they invest hundreds of millions on a new rig and just say "well I think this is going to work, but if something happens it's ok, we don't mind bankrupting ourselves".

            Your stereotypical lalalacoprationsarecompletelyevillalalal is lacking a little substance here.

            • by danbert8 (1024253) on Monday April 09, 2012 @10:15AM (#39619113)

              I agree... As an employee of the oil and gas industry, I can tell you that not only do we comply with general construction codes, we also comply with a series of codes specifically for the oil and gas industry. For example, I work on the storage tanks which are governed by 2 major API codes (which mostly reference ASME codes) and dozens of recommended practices. That is just the start too, there are additionally company specific standards which go well above and beyond those codes. I agree the oil and gas industry didn't have the best historical record, but we have learned a lot since then and spend most of our time trying to prevent the decades old stuff from getting worse. Anything put in today I feel very comfortable with.

              • by quintus_horatius (1119995) on Monday April 09, 2012 @01:42PM (#39621407) Homepage

                I agree the oil and gas industry didn't have the best historical record, but we have learned a lot since then and spend most of our time trying to prevent the decades old stuff from getting worse.

                If the industry has learned a lot, it has only been in the past couple of years. I quote from that most reliable of sources, Wikipedia [] regarding the Deepwater Horizon spill from 2010:

                In January 2011 the White House oil spill commission released its final report on the causes of the oil spill. They blamed BP and its partners for making a series of cost-cutting decisions and the lack of a system to ensure well safety. They also concluded that the spill was not an isolated incident caused by "rogue industry or government officials", but that "The root causes are systemic and, absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur".

                That doesn't sound like an industry trying to learn from and improve upon its troubled past. It's more like business-as-usual: cut corners, ignore best practices, and hope you don't get caught. All businesses do it, but when the petroleum industry screws up everyone and everything suffers.

                I'm not saying that you yourself are a bad person, you may be doing the best job you can, but the people you work for aren't honorable.

                • by danbert8 (1024253)

                  I'm not saying that you yourself are a bad person, you may be doing the best job you can, but the people you work for aren't honorable.

                  That's quite a generalization as you don't know what company I work for. Some companies are shadier than others. Just because there is one Enron in an industry doesn't make everyone evil. Everyone I know in the industry is concerned with safety first and foremost. Our company philosophy is "Spill not one drop" and "Safety First". Surely we've had disasters in the past and will have them in the future, but we are doing things better now that we have in the past.

        • by Telvin_3d (855514) on Sunday April 08, 2012 @11:04AM (#39612711)

          At the start of every airplane flight the attendants stand at the front and talk about exactly what can go wrong as what your response should be.

        • by Will.Woodhull (1038600) <> on Sunday April 08, 2012 @11:38AM (#39612911) Homepage Journal

          Every time there has been an airline crash or construction accident, the companies involved have been forced to talk about what can go wrong. The gas drilling companies are not being held to the same standard for one reason only: at this point we do not even know when they have screwed up.

          There has been enough fracking done by now that even if the risk is much less than an airline crash, there are bound to have been some screw-ups. The public just does not know when or where, and has not a clue about what went wrong. The argument that fracking is safe is the black box fallacy that since you cannot know when something has gone wrong within the black box, you have to have faith that everything in there always works just perfectly.

          Faith is the stuff of churches. It has no place in science, technology, or engineering. And definitely no place in decisions made by corporations.

          I am somewhat negative about fracking. It might be perfectly okay most of the time, but we need a technology that will show us when a crash has happened, and we do not have that. While we are waiting for that, perhaps we could require drilling companies to put most of the profits of a well into escrow for maybe 10 years as a hedge against possible damage claims. That would shift the cost/benefit ratios used in making decisions about drilling in such a way that the black box risks would probably be reduced. And it would encourage those companies to invest in monitoring technologies that would peer into the black box. That would allow them to identify the risks more clearly, but also allow independent monitoring of what they are doing.

          • by digsbo (1292334)
            I was talking to someone knowledgeable about the risks. Basically it's the same as any other exploit - it started out very dirty, and got cleaner. They have a much better idea of the problems that occur now, and take measures to mitigate them, and the problems are becoming fewer and less severe. You have to break eggs to make an omelet.
          • How about the new pseudoscience of high-pressure asphalt in pipelines engineered for naturally-liquid petroleum? I think they're doing their seat-of-someone-else's-pants engineering in the Kalamazoo Watershed.

        • Nice theory. Now compare the cases when construction companies or airlines caused environmental disasters by a single incident (not comparing long-term damages here) with the cases when energy companies did.
        • by AmiMoJo (196126)

          The potential consequences of a plane crash are a few hundred lives lost and a hundred or two million in damage. Blame is usually easy to assign, the problems are mostly well understood.

          Fracking isn't well understood, it is hard to pin problems on it and the potential damage is immense. On top of all that the money spent developing fracking would be better used to develop safer forms of energy.

      • by DaveV1.0 (203135)

        It's amazing the number of things that are safe if you completely ignore the chance of human error.

        Yes, things like operating heavy machinery, driving, surgery, dentistry, engineering, and cooking. You speak of "what CAN go wrong", so explain in detail exactly what can go wrong and how you know that is something that can go wrong. Most people never talk about what can go wrong. When was the last time you explained to someone how they could get three different kinds of food poisoning while on the way to a restaurant.

        Your post an appeal to fear and consequence. You are not being sarcastic, you are being st

      • by reboot246 (623534) on Sunday April 08, 2012 @07:14AM (#39611711) Homepage
        You're in more danger from a gas leak on your service line or meter set than from fracking. More so if you have a locked gate or a bad dog so that the guy who comes around once every few years can't check your property for a gas leak.

        There are gas services out there that haven't been checked in 15 or 20 years. I know. I'm the one who checks them, and I can't go through locked gates and I don't have to deal with vicious dogs. If the house blows up, tough. We keep detailed records.
        • by LoRdTAW (99712)

          If the Gas utility company can not gain access to your property than they can and will bring you to court. I know, we got a letter from the gas company a few years ago. It stated that they have not been able to access our gas meter and that if we did not respond within 30 days, we would be taken to court and forced to let them on our premises. We were unaware of this and when I called the gas company the lady on the phone informed me they were unable to gain access to read the meter for two years and have b

          • IANAL. There is a legal concept called "curtilege" -- this is the boundary of your property which cannot be crossed without trespassing. The boundary does not begin at your fence if your mail box, electrical meter, or gas meter are inside the fence. If a person such as the mailman is reasonably expected to cross into the yard, then any person can cross into the yard, and search the yard.
            • by TheSpoom (715771)

              Slightly offtopic, but the gas meter in my new house is in the basement. Does that mean that anyone can enter the house free of criminal or civil liability for trespassing?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I'll put it this way. It is about as safe as flying in an airplane, which is also fundamentally "unsafe". Yet there is no inherent reason why it must be *so* unsafe that it shouldn't be done.

        Are there risks? Of course. Including risks of catastrophic and spectacular failure, especially if people are negligent. But there's no reason it can't be done safely and usually it is done safely. "Gasland" is like the airplane-disaster-movie version of gas exploration and production. It correctly identifies tha

        • by tirerim (1108567)
          Just because the other things you mention already happen doesn't mean we should be doing them, either. Fossil fuels in general are a problem on multiple levels; so are the levels of agricultural and industrial pollutants that are dumped into the environment. People are more used to them, which makes it harder to fight them... but we still should.
      • by Tyr07 (2300912) on Monday April 09, 2012 @09:33AM (#39618689)

        Nuclear power is safe too except when there is human error.
        Or unforseen natural disasters.

        You know, because, something like that wouldn't affect someone fracking either...right...

      • by gandhi_2 (1108023)

        And yet here we are, consuming energy. Ready to blame everyone if we don't get our energy, get it in a manner not befitting out values, or have get it at a price that we don't agree with.

    • by Sarten-X (1102295) on Sunday April 08, 2012 @07:34AM (#39611763) Homepage

      Oh be quiet. Such rationality isn't allowed here. This is Slashdot, in a fracking discussion!

      On a more serious note, this is exactly right. There is no consensus, but there are a lot of pundits willing to say anything that hasn't been disproven yet, and that applies to both sides of the debate. Bottom line is that we really don't know enough about what's going to decide anything, but most indicators are that the process itself is safe, and the vast majority of environmental damage can be traced to stupid behavior already known to be bad (and usually illegal), like dumping wastewater into rivers.

      What's missing at this point, besides a consensus, is regulation. This "hydraulic fracturing with directional drilling" is a new technology, and legislation hasn't caught up with it yet. Many of those known-bad practices aren't banned (in a fracking context), so they persist. Legislators and regulators don't want to make any rules regarding fracking, because it's political suicide. If the rules ban only known-bad practices, they'll be criticized for being too lax; Ban fracking outright, and run the risk of being too strict when a consensus is reached.

      Personally, I'd be fine with fracking happening close to me. Since I live near the Marcellus shale formation, it's probably coming soon. I do hope some more thorough studies will be done first, and some sane first-step regulation, but that would require sanity from politicians.

      • by dbIII (701233)

        Many of those known-bad practices aren't banned (in a fracking context)

        In Australia where they are banned it seems the majority of people talking about it still assume the worst stuff out of "Gasland" is a certainty. It isn't helped by there being a coal seam gas "goldrush" in progress and a lot of idiots wandering around on people's land not shutting gates etc. In at least one state it's looking like illegal practices could be used anyway by those that have almost bought outright the party running a stat

    • by AngryDeuce (2205124) on Sunday April 08, 2012 @09:02AM (#39612145)

      barring the sort of human error which always ends up causing problems.

      So, basically, fracking is a lot like Communism; great in theory, horrible in practice?

      Since humans will never be removed from the equation, then said human error must be taken into consideration. Even if the reports concerning the link between fracking and geological instability [] are still being reviewed, prudence would still dictate that we stop until we know for sure what the effects might be.

      Well, unless you stand to profit, of course. Then it's full speed ahead, damn the consequences...

    • Brian Dunning also says that DDT is safe, so I'm not sure I immediately trust him. He likes to use Junk Science when it suits his biases.
    • by Creepy (93888)

      Even taking Gasland with a grain of salt, there was plenty of iffy things going on (dumping, payout coverups, multiple people reporting problems only after the fracking began, etc). That said, I've never watched a documentary without assuming bias, since they are basically an extended opinion piece, and I didn't take the oil company responses at face value, either (that is like asking the tobacco companies about the safety of tobacco).

    • by steveg (55825)

      I'm not qualified to discuss things like earthquakes as a result of fracking.

      But I spent some time in a previous life analyzing (oil well) wireline logs specifically for the purpose of predicting how high the fracture "wings" would extend. It comes down to trying to compute relative in-place x, y and z stresses and rock tensile strengths. The magnitude of the stresses are far greater than the tensile strengths, but the stresses are all compressive.

      In an ideal world, the z stress will be the weakest of the

  • by manu0601 (2221348) on Saturday April 07, 2012 @11:37PM (#39610603)
    It seems fracking could be done safely. But since the companies doing fracking are here to make money, we can trust them to cut corners whenever it can save money. Fracking will go wrong, and water supplies will be polluted with toxic compounds. We have a long backlog of industrial pollution to be confident about this.
    • by c_jonescc (528041)
      Agreed. I'm down on fracking, and don't think the risk is anywhere worth it. However, there's too much money available in getting to that shale, so it's likely inevitable that where it's possible fracking will eventually happen.

      The best we can hope for is some proper regulation and oversight over the petroleum companies.
      • by manu0601 (2221348)

        there's too much money available in getting to that shale, so it's likely inevitable that where it's possible fracking will eventually happen.

        Well, public rejection of fracking is so widespread that politician will think twice before allowing it. I think you go a bit too far by suggesting anything lucrative always happens. Slavery is lucrative, for instance, but it does not happens in the US.

  • Who to trust (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sqrt(2) (786011) on Saturday April 07, 2012 @11:43PM (#39610611) Journal

    I don't know enough about it to make a decisions one way or the other, but I'm sure there are people who do. The problem seems to be identifying them. Here's a hint though, they're probably the ones with degrees in geology, chemistry, and physics--not businessmen, not shareholders.

    Capitalism is woefully ill-equipped at dealing with external costs/risks. Fracturing could be very profitable, but it could also be very risky. When the people who stand to profit aren't the ones who'll suffer any consequences if it goes wrong (or if it's not possible to do "right") then you have a recipe for reckless behavior.

    • When the people who stand to profit aren't the ones who'll suffer any consequences if it goes wrong (or if it's not possible to do "right") then you have a recipe for reckless behavior.

      Good point. The problem is that the person taking the risk doesn't necessarily have the same risk tolerance as everyone subjected to it.

      But there's another issue of risk tolerance. Suppose the CEO of a fracking company has extended family living in the community, so he has both risk and reward. But suppose he's a whack-jo

  • I know you're not supposed to comment on the choices, but where's the choice that says I'm pretty sure it's NOT a good idea?

    Fracking: Great way of getting energy or GREATEST way of getting energy?

    • I'm pretty sure that's what the "sharpening my monkey wrench" option is for
      • by Carewolf (581105)

        I think it is meant for the "What the frack are you talking about?" or the "Oh?! I love fracking the ladies" segment.

    • I don't know enough to say if it's a good idea or not. But I do know enough to see that the choices are biased.

      Fracking: Great way of getting energy or GREATEST way of getting energy?

      Since my mod points expired overnight and I can only give out fictitious ones I'll give you another +1 for such a nice illustration of the bias.

    • "The risks clearly outweigh the benefits" seems to be what you're looking for...

      It's phrased opposite the usual use of the words (benefits outweighing risks) but it's right there. The options are in order...

      • by ryanov (193048)

        I feel like that option was not there last time I looked at it, but I guess I just have to assume I can't read unless anyone knows otherwise.

        • I had to read it two or three times before I noticed that it was fracking-negative, not fracking-positive.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    As long as the energy companies agree to resettle anyone who wants to leave the affected area, and permanently truck in water to the people who don't want to leave. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the science or the methodology, but stop externalizing the costs to the government when it has to resource a muni water supply because the water is flammable.

    • by Raul654 (453029) on Sunday April 08, 2012 @09:12AM (#39612177) Homepage

      Won't work. Once they've caused a disaster, they can simply declare bankruptcy. They would either have to put up the money into an escrow account in advance, or purchase insurance against such a possibility. (And greedy bastards that they are, the insurance companies can provide a very useful oversight role in such a role)

      On the other hand, it strikes me as a fundamentally radical policy that we are willing to accept the possibility of long-term, effectively unfixable contamination of our underground water sources in exchange for a temporary fix to our energy needs.

  • In 1979, during the energy crisis, I was involved in a project to retrieve natural gas from shale oil using dynamite to separate the shale layers between two holes which were drilled about a mile apart. (No water was involved.) A fire was started in the shale oil in one of the holes, and air pumped in to keep it burning. The natural gas produced by the heat was driven towards the other hole where it was pumped to the surface. The natural gas was about 2% in the air pumped up. This was a closed system in tha

  • by MaXintosh (159753) on Sunday April 08, 2012 @06:57PM (#39614973)
    To quote the great, late Carl Sagan,
    I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble. Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.

    I don't know enough, for and against, to make a reasonable decision. And I'm not in a position to effect change, even if I had an opinion. I think it's better for me to leave the debate to the real experts, instead of trying to prognosticate from my armchair. It's a crazy idea. It just might work.
    • That's a commendable position, and it is premature for anyone to state they know what we ought to do in absence of the facts. Unfortunately, if everyone chooses to sit back and wait for the experts to figure it out, do you really feel confident that what emerges will be the product of the best scientific judgement? Or do you think those with vested interests on both sides of the issue will cherry pick results and promote only the message that benefits them? If nothing else, the public needs to be involved i

    • Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.

      Actually, it is not. We may never have complete knowledge of the world, and we definitely don't have adequate knowledge about many aspects of the world today. Yet life is happening right now, people are making decisions now. Some of these decisions can have drastic consequences either way they are decided and need to be made based on the limited information we have now.

      If we allow fraking and it later turns out to be unsafe, millions of people may be without safe drinking water. If we disallow it, then gas

  • If there is a chance that this energy technology makes anyones drinking water undrinkable, especially to those who need it the most. People in rural areas who have no other source of easy drinking water. Then it must be stopped. Clean water > "cheaper" natural gas.

    To say nothing of the chemicals that they won't disclose.

    But we are talking about an industry which halves the tops off mountains to save costs.

    • by will_die (586523)
      If that was the basis for any type of power generation you could not have solar or wind powered. Since those energy technologies require nondisclosed chemicals that could get into drinking supply of someone causing it to be undrinkable.
  • Obligatory missing option.

  • by bziman (223162)
    Anything that involves digging a finite resource out of the ground and burning it is not economically safe. While I have concerns about fracking (although they are only "gut" concerns, as opposed to the certainty over the evilness of, say, coal mining and burning, in all its forms), I'm much more concerned about the desperate way that Americans refuse to put their efforts toward modern renewable sources of energy and toward efficiency in the way that the energy is consumed.
  • What the frack are we talking about?
  • by fa2k (881632)
    I read that as "tracking", and I think the downsides of tracking outweighs the benefits, because the benefits are tiny for me and the advertisers. I haven't spent money once as a result of a targeted ad. Now for fracking, meh. Companies should be held responsible for the damage that's a direct result of fracking (where this can be proven), but the risks are probably small.
  • by k6mfw (1182893) on Monday April 09, 2012 @11:38AM (#39619985)
    Few months ago a friend from France, she has been living here for years but watches French TV via satellite, mentioned French news with video shoots about outgassing in North Dakota (or Montana?) as result of pumping high pressure air (or water?). I didn't hear her say the term fracking but she said news coverage showed lot of dead cattle from toxic fumes coming from the ground and people had flammable gas in their water wells. She said the French covered this situation extensively but there is no mention in US news. I did a little surfing around, didn't find much though. However, certain places like this forum talk about extracting oil, and the consequences, from the north midwest.
  • If all we do is watch documentaries and read Wikipedia, this won't be much of a debate.

    Nearly all raw water we get from wells and from surface flows (rivers, streams, etc) is dirty. We use energy to clean it up enough to be fit for human consumption.

    That energy has to come from somewhere. The question with Fracking is whether the additional contamination it puts in to the water supply is too expensive to remove. It may be so expensive that the value of the gas we'd extract makes the process uneconomical. O

  • I'm still recovering from too many deviled eggs on Easter Sunday.

    If someone started fracking in my gut, I'm sure it would feel very bad.

  • buried under the rubble

  • You misspelled fragging.
  • The Cylons. They have a plan you know.

"Paul Lynde to block..." -- a contestant on "Hollywood Squares"


Forgot your password?