Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   Goldman Sachs forecasts $105-per-barrel oil, multi-year spike. In other news, Goldman Sachs has a huge long position in oil that it bought at $57 last week   ( divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

12786 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Mar 2005 at 7:02 PM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

293 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

2005-03-31 07:55:46 PM  

Umm, no, the fact that American oil production would peak in the 1970's was predicted before the 1970's, guess what, it happened.

Read 2005-03-31 07:35:24 PM Von Mises, regarding world oil reserve predictions.

We're apparently using negative oil at this point, according to previous estimates.
2005-03-31 07:56:05 PM  
[image from too old to be available]

hmmmm....speaking of ignorance
2005-03-31 07:56:09 PM  
Buy a diesel.

Put discarded, filtered vegetable oil in the gas tank.


2005-03-31 07:57:54 PM  
So, if they finally get the time and date just right, would you be satisfied?

I'd say the thirty-year plus or minus category is allowable here.

The world has plenty of oil.

According to the United States Geological Survey, the U.S. Department of Energy and many, many other reputable sources, we have sufficient oil resources for at least the next several hundred years, maybe longer. The costs of extraction will likely be higher, but scarcity? No.

Without the emotional "the end of the world as we know it," paranoia from the traditional media, let's actually look at world oil reserves.

Currently, the world's recognized reserves of oil are higher than at any time in history. And, contrary to conventional media hysteria, the world's clearly identified reserves are growing every year. The USGS reports in the "World Petroleum Assessment 2000" that world reserves of conventional crude oil total 3,000 billion barrels. This estimate is an increase from a similar estimate in 1994 of 2,400 billion barrels, up from 1,500 billion barrels in 1990.

But this report considers only "liquid" or conventional oil oil that's accessible and readily available from underground reservoirs. This does not include highly viscous oils, oil-tar sand deposits or oil shale.

The major media focus with myopic intensity on conventional crude reserves, ignoring stunning reserves of oil located in tar sands and oil shale. At best, this is difficult to comprehend.

For example, little media attention was accorded the dramatic increases in Canadian oil reserves. A December 2003 report in Oil and Gas Journal notes that Canada's oil reserves now total more than 180 billion barrels of oil, with most found in economically recoverable oil-tar sand deposits. In contrast, Saudi Arabia's reserves are estimated at 264 billion barrels.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers sees the oil sand reservoir at a stunning 2,000 billion barrels of crude, of which 315 billion barrels is currently recoverable. This is oil economically viable at prices between $18 and $20 per barrel. Worldwide, recoverable reserves of oil found in oil sands are currently reported in excess of 1,000 billion barrels.

But by far the largest potential reservoir of future oil is held in oil shale.

The U.S. Department of Energy, in a March 2004 study, reports oil shale reserves in the United States alone of over 2,000 billion barrels. Worldwide, oil-shale reserves are estimated as high as 14,000 billion barrels.

To put this in perspective, U.S. oil-shale reserves alone would be sufficient to provide 100 percent of U.S. crude oil consumed at current usage for over 200 years.

Worldwide reserves of 14,000 billion barrels are sufficient to provide the world's crude oil requirements for at least several hundred years.

The truth is, the history of oil prognostication is littered with scaremongers proclaiming false declarations of approaching oil famine. In fact, doom merchants have used oil as a vehicle for "end of the world" scenarios since before World War I. Consider:

In 1914, the U.S. Bureau of Mines declared that the United States would run out of oil in 10 years.

In 1939, the Department of the Interior predicted that oil reserves would last only 13 more years.

In 1950, when the world's estimated reserves were thought to be 600 billion barrels, the Department of Interior again projected the end of the age of oil by 1963.

Move forward to the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which prompted the highly respected journal Foreign Affairs to publish an article on "The Oil Crisis: This Time the Wolf is Here."

In 1981, a respected textbook on economic geology predicted that the United States was entering a 125-year-long energy gap, expected to be at its worst in the year 2000 with dire consequences to our standard of living.

In 1995, a prominent geologist predicted that petroleum production would peak in 1996 and that after 1999 many of the developed world's societies would look like Third World countries.

In 1998, a Scientific American article titled "End of the Age of Oil" predicted that world oil production would peak in 2002 and that we would soon face the "end of the abundant and cheap oil on which all nations depend."

All of these predictions were wrong. In fact, from 1950 to the present, the world's recognized oil reserves have increased virtually every year.

2005-03-31 07:59:12 PM  
And one other thing.

We are not the only country in the world. The two fastest growing countries are China and India. Soon, they'll be the number two and three consumers of oil, nudging Japan to the fourth spot.

It's simple supply and demand. We're consuming more and more oil every year and demand is just going to increase as the population of these countries increase.

I don't know about you, but when there is an oil shortage, a showdown with China is the last thing the U.S. or the world needs.

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is: "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." But, only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!"

[image from too old to be available]
2005-03-31 07:59:39 PM  
I'm a bit confused about peak oil - the Athabasca tar sands in Canada have more oil than all of Saudi Arabia, by all accounts.

Currently it's too expensive to extract in large amounts.

Easy oil goes down -> price goes up -> tar sand oil becomes economical.

2005-03-31 08:00:01 PM  
2005-03-31 08:00:25 PM  

Buy a diesel.

Put discarded, filtered vegetable oil in the gas tank.



Good holy Christ, you've solved the world's energy problems! Well, at least until as many as 1/10th of one percent of the population starts doing this and the demand for used vegetable oil exceeds the supply.
2005-03-31 08:01:43 PM  
hey! TarredCement

no whining, asshat

[image from too old to be available]
2005-03-31 08:01:48 PM  
ummm... oil it costs money and stuff
i don't like them gasoline prices and tire prices and all that stuff
so its gonna be cheaper soon?
2005-03-31 08:02:22 PM  
heywood jablonski
I'm willing to accept that oil production can and will decrease until it's not worth the money to do so further. I'm also willing to accept that there is going to be a lot of painful, near-term adjustments that will need to be made. I'm not, however, willing to accept the assumption that our society will roll over and take it until we whither away.

but we ARE rolling over and accepting it...or rather rolling over an ignoring it...exactly how long do you think it will take to ramp up and implement these 'necessity is the mother of invention" solutions to the problem? if people won't identify and start working on the problem until it's begun and is rolling, then it's going to just continue to get worse and worse!

how bad will the problem have to get before people and politicians start to address it? this is a very serious question to all the people who are saying we're ok....

what will be the trigger for people to start saying "OK, lets sort this alternative energy thing out".

What will be the trigger for YOU to say something like that?

And after you say that, how long do you think it will take to retool the entire world economy to that new energy?

Bearing in mind, the industrial revolution started the fossil fuel age in western societies, and it's taken what, 200 years to get where we are now?
it won't take that long because we'll have incentive and technology, so let's quarter it and say 50years to retool the whole world.
hell, lets be REALLY generous and say 20 years. or 10 years!

now go back to the question "how bad will the problem have to get before people and politicians start to address it?"

now go 10, 20 or 50 years beyond that with that problem getting worse and worse every year

and now tell me why we don't start right the fark now?

even boy scouts know to "be prepared"
2005-03-31 08:02:33 PM  
Von Mises: The world has plenty of oil.

Nice piece of propaganda. I've heard all that.

Again, I wouldn't bet on it. It's far more likely that we will continue to be greedy and wasteful and continue to grow exponentially and gobble up all our natural resources with a passion. Enough oil? Did you take into consideration that we have much of Asia joining us in the Modern Age?

Our society would do much better to ditch petroleum altogether. That's the solution.

This is actually a challenge to big business and capitalism.

Big money is the only reason we haven't gone solar, I'm convinced.
2005-03-31 08:03:34 PM  
No, it's just I have a little more faith in humanity than some. I've read all the propaganda, but from all I've read, it seems the Peakists are more interested in painting a doomsday scenario than anything else.

For every one bit of energy we spend on getting oil we get 100 bits back. The closest we come with other fuel sources (hyrdrogen, etc.) is 30 bits. Read the peak oil website, scary stuff.

In the west we take for granted how cheap everything is, especially food, just wait until the shortages begin. I have no doubt that the human race and the planet will survive, however it will almost certianly be the most traumatic period in human history.

The peak oil website goes into detail about how un-elastic oil is a commodity. During the oil shocks of the 70's prices had to rise by 400 % before demand started to decline.

What are we doing to avoid this inevitable crisis now ?. Please write to your local politician and try and make this an issue that is talked about in the mainstream now.
2005-03-31 08:03:37 PM  

Whether it's 15 years, 30 years or 100 years down the road, I think we can all agree that it's advantageous for all of us to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use across the board.

See, this sentiment I can respect and relate to. Part of what turns me (and I assume others) off the peak oil thing is the certainty of their predictions, when there's a long history of wrong answers! We don't know. You don't see the weatherman making iron-clad predictions on the weather because it's hard, and they know it's hard, and with a history of being wrong pretty often they know better than to pretend anything different.

Clearly, though, long term, if we just keep doing what we're doing, we may be farked. The effort to get away from our reliance on oil is pretty pathetic, especially considering the costs involved (such as having to deal with the middle east rather than just ignoring the mess like we do with most of Africa) While the oil crash MAY be a ways off, shifting off oil will take some time too, so waiting until the problem is acute seems like a stupid idea regardless.

And I say we may be farked because it's always possible that some new technology comes along, say fusion becomes easy, and the problem is solved before the oil situation gets real bad. Not exactly the kind of thing you want to count on happening, though. It's another thing that's impossible to predict.
2005-03-31 08:03:45 PM  
Don't know if you're still following this but your quote:
"People go apeshiat and riot and loot now adays over trial verdicts. What do you think people are gonna do when the lights go off, and don't come back on?"

Got me thinking...

I think you need to qualify this statement as:
People in big metropolitan cities go apeshiat...

I doubt all the rednecks and "bread basket" red-staters are afraid to go back to candles, and plowing the fields with livestock. They know where their next meal is coming from, because they grow it. Those "dumb mother farkers who voted for GWB" are much more self sufficient than the "enlightened ones" who feel the need to congregate everyone into huge crime infested cities, where one prolific virus can spread quickly enough to drop the population back to where oil production for the US don't matter...

/I'll probably be ostracized for that one, but WGAF, it's only FARK. I always know that no matter what I say, someone will say something much stupider :'P
2005-03-31 08:03:48 PM  
Not to mention, thermal depolymerization, folks! It'll keep the petroleum-based cycle going long after it ain't easy to suck it out of the ground!
2005-03-31 08:04:06 PM  
Maui Haui

Unfortunately, wind turbines, like the ones around Lake Ontario, kill a lot of birds. Dunno how folks feel about birds, tho'.

Webgrunt: ...the demand for used vegetable oil exceeds the supply.

Well, then just make some for goodness sakes. The diesel was invented specifically to run on vegetable oil, the idea being that a farmer could grow his own fuel.
2005-03-31 08:04:32 PM  
from a _Republican_ Senator:

"Surprisingly from the most pessimistic to the most optimistic, there was not much deviation in what the estimate is as to what the known reserves are out there. It is about 1,000 gigabarrels. That sounds like an awful lot of oil. But when you divide into that the amount of oil which we use"

You get the picture.
2005-03-31 08:07:52 PM  
OK, so I'll buy that there have been alot of scaremongering tactics use by people who probably have an ulterior motive and/or are just doomsayer types anyway. Many times it has been said the sky is falling and the sky hasn't fell.
Yet the risk that world oil prices could skyrocket is a real risk and therefore should be talked about honestly.

I'll reiterate: Diversify our energy sources. Much to be gained from diversification, new technologies (controlled by the front runners), potential new job markets, etc.
So what is the downside to energy diversification? (Theres always a downside.)
I don't honestly know but I'd be interested to hear what ya'll think.
2005-03-31 08:08:33 PM  
Marshall Banana

Easy oil goes down -> price goes up -> tar sand oil becomes economical.

Price of energy goes up, the price of everything goes up. Efficiency goes down, standard of living goes down. World recession or depression happens. People start coveting the other guy's resources.

OK, that may be a worse-case scenario... but energy prices going up to fast and too high is not good for anyone.
2005-03-31 08:09:05 PM  

I doubt all the rednecks and "bread basket" red-staters are afraid to go back to candles, and plowing the fields with livestock. They know where their next meal is coming from, because they grow it. Those "dumb mother farkers who voted for GWB" are much more self sufficient than the "enlightened ones"

Wait, aren't these the ones getting all the welfare checks? What are they gonna do when THOSE stop coming?
2005-03-31 08:10:24 PM  
Thank you, Von Mises. Everyone should read his post. And when you decide whether to listen to Von Mises or to take WalkingCarpet's viewpoint, keep in mind that the former chose a handle that reference a brilliant scientist and statistician while the latter chose a Star Wars reference.
2005-03-31 08:10:37 PM  
2005-03-31 08:10:57 PM  
good headline
2005-03-31 08:11:46 PM  
Wow, this stuff is almost as fascinating as it is stool-loosening.
2005-03-31 08:12:15 PM  
Let me give you one piece of advice son 'plastics'

Oil for transportation and electricity can be replaced easily
(at the right price) but until you want a wooden mouse and keyboard we will always need petrochemicals. A lot more is made from oil than just gasoline, as it has been said above. So its not all about going to the mall. I dont know the peak oil theory but the disscussion needs to be about more than your SUV
2005-03-31 08:13:17 PM  

So what is the downside to energy diversification? (Theres always a downside.)

Well, cost is one. This stuff needs to be developed.

Control is another. We have an economy heavily dependent on oil, and the oil/car/trucking/etc. companies probably don't like the idea that some new technology might pull the carpet out from under them. Hippies argue that this is one reason that pot will never be legal, as alcohol and tobacco companies don't want the competition. I think they may be more right than wrong, when you look at the control companies wield in our government.
2005-03-31 08:13:33 PM  
Gee with $110 per barrel oil, hydrogen fuel for autos will become competitively priced.
$110 / 55 = $2 per gallon (oil, not gasoline)......still cheaper than starbucks coffee.
2005-03-31 08:14:05 PM  
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It's not like I'm making this stuff up or predicting that the sky is going to fall.

My god that was assholish.
2005-03-31 08:14:17 PM  
I believe in Peak Oil.

So I got a skateboard just in case.

Fools, so things go SO expensive everyone will have to take public transportation! Go to england, its like $20(converted sterling) a gallon. And they go about life just fine.
2005-03-31 08:16:11 PM  
Ya all best start buying Bike and Motorcycle stocks..
/200 Million chinese can't be wrong
2005-03-31 08:16:30 PM  
Why I don't believe in peak oil: (and yes, I read the sites)

1. No solution is actually offered, just doomsday.

2. Energy markets always rise and fall in tandem. If the price of one source goes up, everyone switches over. Remember how big natural gas was three years ago?

3. People are inventive. Everyone said tidal and wind wouldn't work. The last time gas topped $2.00 / gallon, suddenly they invented a new wind turbine and an efficient wave generator. Within three months. This is what R&D gets you.

4. Most of all, Peak Oil ignores everything we know about Macroeconomics, Game Theory and Social Psychology. Especially statements like this:

A 5% shortfall created by the 1973 oil embargo of the OPEC nations (a false shortage created by a policitcal situation) caused a price spike of 400%

Oil is an inelastic good. This means it does not fluctuate directly with the supply and demand curves, but follows a "history" of what prices were before. Energy, medicine, and wages are more examples of inelastic goods, which are usually inelastic due to the lack of reasonable substitutes. Notice I said reasonable, not "any."

If there's anything energy markets have taught us; we aren't that fussy about our "brand" of energy. We'll be more than happy to switch over as new things are discovered. But that takes time.

Yes, demand won't go down overnight. Yes, sudden surges will cause the price to go up indefinitely because they don't to anything to assuage demand. OVER THE SHORT TERM! Over the long term, all goods are elastic. Elasticity is a function of time. Notice how the price of oil went up almost fivefold over the past four years and absolutely nothing happened. We are not worried about gradual price rises. Oil could go up to $1,000 a barrel by 2100 and no one would care. Given time to retool, we substitute out of expensive things and towards cheaper things. This is the law of demand. Demand goes down when the price goes up.

Basically, Peak Oil tries to claim it is impossible to substitute oil because, for some reason, they think there is nothing, no human endeavor on the entire planet, that has a return on investment above 1:1, which is just hogwash. There are thousands: Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, tidal, chimney effect, atmospheric, marine, or even microwave satellites in space.

But, wont it take energy to build them? Yes, but not nearly as much energy as they will put out over their lifetime. Why do you think people are putting up wind turbines NOW? Its not because they enjoy it; its for the money. As soon as the price of energy rises to the point where tidal engines become profitable, people will build them. As it is, its not worth the manpower and price of materials.

Basically, assume X is the price of energy, M is the cost of Manpower and Materials, and E1 is the amount of energy required to put it up. E2 is the energy put out.

M + E1 * X

E2 * X

Say, E2 = 2 * E1. Right Now Cost > Profit

$90,000 + $50/barrel * 100 barrels = 95,000 which is greater than 10,000 = 200 barrels * $50/barrel

Now raise the price of energy to $1,000 / barrel. Look:

$90K + K/barrel * 100 barrel = 190K which is LESS THAN 200K = 1K * 200 barrel.


3. Profit!
2005-03-31 08:18:14 PM  
Best things you all can do:

1) put some solar panels on your roof. The sun is a HUGE untapped source of energy. They don't even have to be visible from the ground, and California gives you a huge-ass tax write-off for putting them up there.

2) move closer to work. 50 mile commutes are for retards, aside from being horrible for the environment. It doesn't matter if you're driving a Prius if you have to do 60k miles a year, better to not drive at all when you can help it.

Or just ride a motorcycle like I do. 40+ mpg and I don't sit in traffic. Woo.
2005-03-31 08:18:41 PM  

I know... lets invade a country for it's oil!

wait.... isn't that what everyone was saying ?

/sorry attempt for trolling.


Now, take the cost of Iraq. Don't even worry about the money, just go with food consumption and man hours. I bet we could have had a crapload of solar power infrastructure built for that.
2005-03-31 08:19:17 PM  
"Wait, aren't these the ones getting all the welfare checks? What are they gonna do when THOSE stop coming?"

Exactly my point! Have you seen the rides those welfare recipients have! How you can turn a couple hundred a month into an Escalade with $5K worth of dubs on it is beyond me... They know how to stretch your hard earned $$$
2005-03-31 08:21:01 PM  
[image from too old to be available]

The problem isn't peak oil supply, it's Peking oil demand.
2005-03-31 08:22:30 PM  
I don't know about you, but when there is an oil shortage, a showdown with China is the last thing the U.S. or the world needs.

Funny, here I thought the last thing China or the world needs is a showdown with the United States. You know, given that the Chinese themselves figure they'll probably never become the largest economy, or at best so slightly larger that neither country will be dominant versus the other, and that tangling with the U.S. conventionally seems to be a bad idea. (And that America attempting to engage in a land war inside China is about as likely as China attempting the same in North America.)

But oooo, let's make China the Big Bad. Cause that's what everyone does. It's more interesting that way.

Sim Tree
1. No solution is actually offered, just doomsday.

Oh c'mon, those are the most fun, the most interesting. That's why so many people buy into them. (See: big bad China above.) So what if there's great disagreement behind them and their primary proponents are journalists and authors peddling the stuff? There's no middle ground for these people. Oil? Catastrophe is comin'! China? Gonna take over the world!

(The GS headline is funny, too. The submitter knows about about GS. Witness GS releasing its 2050 report that says China may eventually become the largest economy by 2050, assuming high annual rates of growth for the next 50 years that no one else assumes for the country, and a rate of growth for the US roughly half what everyone else expects. When the report was being prepared and released, GS was in the midst of bidding for several billion in contracts with the Chinese government. Guess who got those contracts?)
2005-03-31 08:22:40 PM  
Nuclear is the answer folks.

I would gladly drive a hydrogen car if we built more nuke plants to not only create hydrogen but also for power.
2005-03-31 08:23:10 PM  
While I'm young, naive, and probably talking out of my ass, I will leave my two cents.

There really is no telling what will happen with oil. My opinion is that both sides are wrong.
brobak: It's hard to say that oil prices and oil presence can be determined by a variable. A 2-3% increase in demand will, most likely, not stay consistent. People, just like you, will respond.
I'd like to say more, but I have no way of wording it (coherrently) to fit my thoughts; and it's hard to comment on your statements, as they conquer me logically.

A shortage will occur. Oil is not like water. It isn't recycled (I don't think? Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means).
I just don't think that the world will end. We'll pull through... we always do. Don't think of it as arrogance. Think of it as hope.
2005-03-31 08:24:18 PM  
Nice piece of propaganda. I've heard all that.

Really? So if you knew that 'peak oil' predictions have been made incorrectly for over 90 years, what makes you think this one is right?

Our society would do much better to ditch petroleum altogether. That's the solution.

Then start right now. Quit using your petroleum derived computer and other baubles of mankind's civilization. Get back to nature and living right, don't wait on the rest of us.

This is actually a challenge to big business and capitalism.

Which is why I'm not worried about it. There's a lot of money to be made keeping the lights on. People will find ways to earn that money, they always do given the chance.

Big money is the only reason we haven't gone solar, I'm convinced.

Woot! It's not efficiency, reliability, and higher cost, it's a conspiracy! They'll probably come for you tonight, seeing as how you're onto them...
2005-03-31 08:26:35 PM  
When I'm filling up my econobox, if I hear any Hummer or Excursion owners biatching about the price at the pump, I'll have no choice but to break out the world's smallest violin. I saw this shiat coming five years ago and made my car choice based on the question, "What if gas costs $2.50 a gallon?"
2005-03-31 08:26:44 PM  
Whether or not you believe in peak oil -- even if you think there's a magical abiotic process that replenishes crude at a useful rate -- the fact remains that it's in our best interest to get out from underneath the thumb of Saudi Arabia and the middle east in general. We should be working on new energy resources regardless of peak oil, not because of it.
2005-03-31 08:26:47 PM  
A Peak Oil discussion and no mention of thermal depolymerization?
2005-03-31 08:28:36 PM  
Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor

Google it.
2005-03-31 08:29:32 PM  
Von Mises

Currently, the world's recognized reserves of oil are higher than at any time in history... The USGS reports in the "World Petroleum Assessment 2000" that world reserves of conventional crude oil total 3,000 billion barrels.

In the 80's, the US consumed a low of 15 million barrels a day.  1 billion / 15 million = less than 70... So 70 days of oil in 1 billion barrels. 3,000 billion * 70 /265 days = almost 600 years of oil. That's assuming we can use every single drop. But wait! The US uses 25% of the world's oil. 600 / 4 = 150 years.

That's hardly a handful of generations worth of oil left. That's without taking into account population growth, or declining oil production, or lower effeciency of utilizing oil shale, or tar sands.
2005-03-31 08:29:53 PM  
Why don't you people understand? Jesus will provide us with all of the oil we need to survive until Judgement Day.

/how do fundies resolve the obvious conflicts in their lives?
2005-03-31 08:30:21 PM  
The part of the Peak Oil argument that has always bothered me is how US production peaked in the 1970s. It isn't that the oil wasn't there, but that it cost a tenth of the price to produce it elsewhere.
2005-03-31 08:30:46 PM  
I predict that in 2-years gasoline will be 3x the cost it is today.
When it is $6 a gallon, look back on these days with fondness.

I for one will be glad to see the dinosaurs/SUVs die off.

I will not look forward to price increases in EVERYTHING....

me, I walk. and I am a healthy bastard too. Hey, how about that obesity...?
2005-03-31 08:32:05 PM  
WalkingCarpet: no dissing intended, just saying one must choose one's sources wisely on the internet.

Also, although you didn't make this stuff up, someone did. (Yes, I've read the sites. Several times. No, I'm not convinced.)
2005-03-31 08:32:54 PM  
"$110 / 55 = $2 per gallon (oil, not gasoline)......still cheaper than starbucks coffee."

Those kind of comparisons are senseless. I don't buy 14 gallons of STarbucks coffee at one time.

Our species is doomed to die on this planet, and this planet alone, unless fusion power becomes a reality real soon.
Displayed 50 of 293 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.