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.

(CNSNews)   In other news, a recent study shows that Colorado, Utah and Wyoming have more recoverable oil than the rest of the entire world. So we have that going for us, then   (cnsnews.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, shale oil, Government Accountability Office, proven oil reserves, Rand Corporation, proven reserves  
•       •       •

5427 clicks; posted to Business » on 12 May 2012 at 5:29 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



170 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-12 08:44:59 PM  

namatad: 10-20 years from now? Either we will invest massively in oil shale and coal or we will be building fission reactors.
I predict oil shale and coal, because they require the least change in our existing infrastructure.


There's also the chance algal biodiesel might be gotten viable by then.
 
2012-05-12 09:06:47 PM  
Yay, let's pollute the water, cause earthquakes, ruin drinking water for entire cities, and cause ecological destruction akin to open top coal mining.

GO BIG OIL!

GO BIG DERP
 
2012-05-12 09:19:04 PM  
Nationalize it.

Saudi Arabia sells oil domestically for $4 per barrel.

Let's do that, instead of selling our resources to China in order to fatten Exxon's wallet.
 
2012-05-12 09:22:03 PM  

tomWright: RobertBruce: Even the romans could efficiently move water long distances, including up hill....UNpowered. We could do the same with sea water. No need to waste fresh water on this.

Agreed, BUT: I have a problem with injecting seawater into the ground. How will the salt affect the aquifer? Moving the water is not an issue, but the salt may be. That would need to be looked at. Desalinized may be preferable. But that could be done with a solar installation! :)


Then they could dump that salt back in the Utah Salt Flats and bring back the auto races. I read an article (on FARK I think), saying that the Salt Flat Auto races are possibly being cancelled because of some slushiness in the salt layer? I'm not sure, and am too busy drinking to look it up.
But I like your idea.
Wrecking freshwater tables is still a problem though.
Look at San Luis, CO. PG&E wrecked that place. And several other places by fracking. North Dakota is starting to have problems now as well. It's not making national news very often though. But local news outlets are chirping. And local residents are starting to get upset at their FLAMING GEYSERS OF WATER boiling out of their sisterns.
 
2012-05-12 09:26:07 PM  
Since it's only a CNS News article instead of a real news source, I skimmed it. "An" auditor somehow becomes "GAO testimony" which is then backed up by testimony from "the Rand Corporation".

Let me know if any real evidence becomes available. Because it would be pretty cool if reasonably recoverable oil was available that allowed us more time in our inevitable switch to non-fossil fuel sources.

/ it's cute, however, how most of the "article" is really just enormous block quotes from a single auditor and the Rand Corporation
// guess it's easier to write an article if you just reprint the commentary from biased sources instead of doing real research
 
2012-05-12 09:27:34 PM  

ohokyeah: I'm from Colorado, I don't buy it. Shale comes in about every twenty years or so when the gas prices get to the point where its "profitable" to try to extract it from the shale. When oil prices plummet, the oil companies ditch the area and leave the towns that supported their operations in severe economic downturn. There's plenty of reason for Western Coloradans not to trust oil companies after the oil left in the mid 80's.


Word. I looked at buying property in San Luis because I hate everybody and want to live alone. With strangers as neighbors.
The morning I looked at buying 5 acres for $12k, I read an article about PG&E having to truck water in to the entire town because the horizontal drilling or fracking had introduced a massive pocket of methane into the local fresh water table.
I still live in Orlando.
 
2012-05-12 09:29:31 PM  
One of the local yokel derp-spewing pastors around here is convinced that if this state outlaws abortion we'll find oil in the state and be richly rewarded by God.
This was after news of the bakken formation and oil shale had broken but before it was widely reported.

/really surprised that guy's church is still tax exempt
 
2012-05-12 09:34:22 PM  

RobertBruce: Even the romans could efficiently move water long distances, including up hill....UNpowered. We could do the same with sea water. No need to waste fresh water on this.


The Romans were able to do that because they used water sources that were above their final destinations. Pumping millions of gallons of seawater uphill a mile to the Eastern front of the rockies will be hugely energy intensive.

Aside from that, if these depsoits are on Federal land, that means they belong to ALL of us, in collective trust. When (and not if, because you know the Dept of the Interior will do it anyhow) these lands are leased out for production, I sincerely hope we as a nation get a good price for our resources. The Bullshiat where private entities lease our our federal lands for resource extraction for pennies on the dollar pisses me off no end. Those deposits belong to you and me and that guy over there, and we NEVER get asked about what price we should set for it. It just gets signed over for some pissant lease price and the mining companies shiat environmental devastation in their wake and take the money back to Australia or Brazil or South africa or wherever they are based.
 
2012-05-12 09:38:02 PM  

jayhawk88: tomWright: Never said it was efficient, just not scarce. If gas and oil can be sent via pipeline, so can water. Or the shale can be mined and shipped to where the needed water is, if the method used even needs that much water.

So we're gonna build one giant pipeline system to pump in millions (billions?) gallons of ocean water a thousand miles inland to enable efficient shale oil recovery. We'll then need to pipe all that water back out to the ocean as well, unless you want to just turn western Colorado into an inland ocean. And oh yea, we'll need to pipe the oil out of course to refineries.

But investing in solar or wind power infrastructure? Crazy talk.


Is it even possible to pipe salt water? Sounds expensive and difficult; what with all the corrosion and such.

RobertBruce: Even the romans could efficiently move water long distances, including up hill....UNpowered. We could do the same with sea water. No need to waste fresh water on this.


Slave labor was awesome.
 
2012-05-12 10:31:43 PM  
places.designobserver.com

Who cares if America winds up looking like this so long as a few rich people are made a bit richer?
 
2012-05-12 10:33:09 PM  

Corporate Self: [places.designobserver.com image 525x418]

Who cares if America winds up looking like this so long as a few rich people are made a bit richer?


Ugh...it looks like New Jersey.
 
2012-05-12 11:07:31 PM  
Mining that much oil would be extremely profitable. Anywhere from $100 - $200 trillion or more depending where the price of oil goes. I would allow the mining with strict environmental rules. I would make the oil companies contribute like $10 for every barrel extracted to be held in a fund for the entire life time of the operation. This would go to fix any damage to the environment during or after they are done mining. Whatever is left in the fund the oil companies can have back once the environment is certified to be back the way it was.
 
2012-05-12 11:12:51 PM  

aragonphx: Mining that much oil would be extremely profitable. Anywhere from $100 - $200 trillion or more depending where the price of oil goes. I would allow the mining with strict environmental rules. I would make the oil companies contribute like $10 for every barrel extracted to be held in a fund for the entire life time of the operation. This would go to fix any damage to the environment during or after they are done mining. Whatever is left in the fund the oil companies can have back once the environment is certified to be back the way it was.


Rules mean nothing when politicians can legally be bribed to change them. Also, what would stop dirty tricks like defunding the EPA?

Unless the rule were codified into something like a Constitutional amendment, they mean nothing.
 
2012-05-12 11:16:35 PM  
We'll just learn to live with the earthquakes n stuff.
 
2012-05-12 11:27:20 PM  

tomWright: I have a problem with injecting seawater into the ground. How will the salt affect the aquifer?


The water is being injected into the reservoir which is holding oil. The water can't escape because of the seal across the top which blocks oil from escaping. If this water can escape, so can the oil, so you've already got oil in your aquifer.
 
2012-05-12 11:27:36 PM  

tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources

[nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov image 533x533]
incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.


Here's what it looks like when it's not spread over the planet like butter over a piece of toast.
sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net

And that's almost all salt water, fresh water is just a fraction of that.
 
2012-05-12 11:31:27 PM  

Gwyrddu: And that's almost all salt water, fresh water is just a fraction of that.


However, if the economics and need dictate, salt water can be easily made into fresh.
 
2012-05-12 11:31:34 PM  

Gwyrddu: Here's what it looks like when it's not spread over the planet like butter over a piece of toast.


maybe its because its the first time I've ever seen something like that, but that just doesn't compute.
 
2012-05-12 11:38:40 PM  

Kazan: you do realize you cannot drink most of the water on the planet.. it's salty.. and making it not salty is very energy intensive


And do you realize you can't drink much of fresh water on the planet...lest you end up with giardia or the beaver fever. Municipal potable water is all treated to some extent. Converting salt water into fresh water can simply be done by just adding one more process to the Water Treatment Plant.
 
2012-05-12 11:39:27 PM  

Forgot_my_password_again: maybe its because its the first time I've ever seen something like that, but that just doesn't compute.


The USGC calculated the volume of water on the planet, and then figured out how big it would it be if it was it a sphere instead, then made the picture to show the comparison. The diameter of the water sphere is actually is about 860 miles, or from Salt Lake City to Topeka Kansas.
 
2012-05-12 11:57:24 PM  

RobertBruce: Even the romans could efficiently move water long distances, including up hill....UNpowered. We could do the same with sea water. No need to waste fresh water on this.


How the hell did they manage this? Did you remember any of the specifics?
 
2012-05-13 12:02:26 AM  

D_Evans45: How the hell did they manage this? Did you remember any of the specifics?


The perpetual motion machine.
 
2012-05-13 12:02:27 AM  

brantgoose: Oil can be forced out of the ground with salt water but bitumen, which is solid, can not. To extract bitumen ("oil" sands, tar or "oil" shale, you have to boil water, which means fresh water because the salts would destroy the boilers and clog the pipes and other equipment.

Even with strip-mining, oil sands such as those in Alberta (which are behind claims that Canada has the second largest reserves in the world) aren't cheap: they take as much water as Calgary, use 0.7 barrels of oil equivalent (mostly 'clean' natural gas) to produce one barrel--a net gain of 0.3 barrels; and result in destruction of large areas of land and massive pollution--cancer rates are astronomical in some places downstream, hundreds of waterfowl have died on the ponds of waste after mistaking the toxic ponds for wetlands or lakes. Furthermor, the restoration of these sites is a joke--it usually consists of the landscaping around the "front" office, and I have put "front" in ironic quotation marks for a reason.

The price of oil needed to make tar shale profitable is even higher than the high prices that are needed to support tar sands. In short this oil isn't coming out of the rock without a lot of government money, a lot of protectionism (against Canadian and other competitors) and without a really high price for oil.

Until now it has been mostly conspiracy theorists and wacky-tune right wing websites that have been touting non-conventional shale oils. The economics and the environmental consequences aren't a real trade-off even as the oil of the Middle East declines and Central Asia becomes the play ground of the Great Game between China, India, Russia and the West.


so force em to desalinize some ocean water. I mean shiat man...this ain't rocket science.
 
2012-05-13 12:13:16 AM  
Shale oil requires lots of water and heat to separate out.

This region gets loads of sunlight.

Solution: Solar steam oil extraction.

Think about it. The leading complaint about solar is that it's available where it's not needed, and it's often interrupted. If you're using it to power an industrial process instead of a city you can flex with the output.
 
2012-05-13 12:17:17 AM  
shale
www.healthpromoting.com
 
2012-05-13 12:26:01 AM  
If only this was in the politics tab. Or a weekday.

Do people who think making more oil in the U.S. brings down prices not understand OPEC and Global trade on purpose? I used to think "yes" until a co-worker went on a rant about selling his car.

Though, as a Wisconsinite, the only thing that brings joy to me about living here, is the hoopla over sand. Nothing but lulz. Watching the oil companies trip over themselves to screw over small towns for sand is like watching a 90's sitcom about women fighting for a sale at Penny's, or mom's rush the Toys R Us for cabbage patch kids and tickle me Elmo.
 
2012-05-13 12:29:42 AM  

AppleOptionEsc: Do people who think making more oil in the U.S. brings down prices not understand OPEC and Global trade on purpose?


Even if it does not bring the price down, it sure can help with the trade deficit we currently have and put a pile of folks to work. Remember, our dependence on foreign oil accounts for about $500B/year where our entire trade deficit is about $790 Billion.
 
2012-05-13 12:30:51 AM  

Gwyrddu: tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources

[nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov image 533x533]
incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.

Here's what it looks like when it's not spread over the planet like butter over a piece of toast.
[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 500x480]

And that's almost all salt water, fresh water is just a fraction of that.


That graphic is mind blowing. Where'd you get it?

Imagine how often the water has been redistributed across the surface over time.
 
2012-05-13 12:35:39 AM  

abb3w: There's also the chance algal biodiesel might be gotten viable by then.


meh
the scale needs is so fricking enormous.
werent they doing some "small" scale tests in the ocean? dumping iron powder to encourage algae blooms?

We use roughly 375 million gallons of gasoline per day. Link

In February 2010, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced that the U.S. military was about to begin large-scale production oil from algal ponds into jet fuel. After extraction at a cost of $2 per gallon, the oil will be refined at less than $3 a gallon. A larger-scale refining operation, producing 50 million gallons a year, is expected to go into production in 2013, with the possibility of lower per gallon costs so that algae-based fuel would be competitive with fossil fuels. Link

so the problem is scale. orders of magnitude scale. at least once you have the bio-oil, you can ship the oil via pipeline to the refineries.

It is a great pie in the sky dream, but the scale. we will see thorium reactors long before algal biofuels can scale.
And once we have cheap electricity, expensive biofuels wont be able to compete.
 
2012-05-13 12:36:58 AM  

Notabunny: Nationalize it.

Saudi Arabia sells oil domestically for $4 per barrel.

Let's do that, instead of selling our resources to China in order to fatten Exxon's wallet.


interesting theory. even with the expected government waste, it would still be cheaper. prison labor to keep costs down. but the GOP wont have any of this
 
2012-05-13 12:47:30 AM  

HeadLever: Kazan: you do realize you cannot drink most of the water on the planet.. it's salty.. and making it not salty is very energy intensive

And do you realize you can't drink much of fresh water on the planet...lest you end up with giardia or the beaver fever. Municipal potable water is all treated to some extent. Converting salt water into fresh water can simply be done by just adding one more process to the Water Treatment Plant.


the cheapest process for doing that is still is much more expensive than processes for municipal treatment
 
2012-05-13 01:53:13 AM  

Gwyrddu: tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources
[nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov image 533x533]
incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.

Here's what it looks like when it's not spread over the planet like butter over a piece of toast.
[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 500x480]
And that's almost all salt water, fresh water is just a fraction of that.


Notice in that graphic that all the water in the world is located exactly where it is needed for this project? Coincidence?

They will soon be testing the Utica Shale with propane frac'ing. We don't need no stinking water.
Perhaps some technology will come from this for the oil shales.
 
2012-05-13 01:53:31 AM  

EnviroDude: Too bad democrats will oppose any and all efforts to produce these fields.


You know, you should really look into trolling Facebook.
 
2012-05-13 03:01:37 AM  
Whatever it take to make sure we don't have to turn off a single neon sign or build any fuel efficient vehicles.
 
2012-05-13 03:16:02 AM  

tomWright: cptjeff: ...

...As the saying goes, take what you need and leave the rest. And leave it in as good shape as better shape than you found it.

Fracking...


FTFY
 
2012-05-13 03:18:50 AM  

rooftop235: Yay, let's pollute the water, cause earthquakes, ruin drinking water for entire cities, and cause ecological destruction akin to open top coal mining.

GO BIG OIL!

GO BIG DERP


Thou shalt be reprimanded for thy abuse of thine caps lock key. Also,
Go balls deep!
 
2012-05-13 03:20:54 AM  
Even if we don't do it for the most part,
just the potential of it, could affect the market.
 
2012-05-13 03:28:50 AM  

Forgot_my_password_again:
maybe its because its the first time I've ever seen something like that, but that just doesn't compute.


It's hard to understand because of the scale. It may help to realize that Earth itself, on non-human scale, is extremely, extremely smooth.
Smoother than a marble. The layer of water is nothing.
 
2012-05-13 03:47:00 AM  
For the record,

there is no way to move water, over distance, up hill, without using power.

nor can you lift anything else without expending energy.

unpossibleh

get some tidal generators on a few hundred miles of our coast to power them desalinizers and you might have that clean water we're going to need when society demand we pursue these fuels

dealing with the shiat water afterwards however is a different story.

/I know! Use the Pacific for clean water reclamation and the Atlantic for dirty disposal
//no wait, I live closer to the Atlantic. Reverse oceans in my last slashie
 
2012-05-13 04:02:03 AM  

Gwyrddu: tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources

[nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov image 533x533]
incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.

Here's what it looks like when it's not spread over the planet like butter over a piece of toast.
[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 500x480]

And that's almost all salt water, fresh water is just a fraction of that.


Let's not forget just how astronomically (well... relatively) large that little ball of blue is you showed everyone is.

Once again we argue over ideas that are not mutually exclusive.

There is both plenty of clean water here, energy to make it drinkable and mobile for industrial purposes AND significant logistical and long term consequences to using it on a large scale for deep crust oil reclamation.

Somewhere, amidst pressure from and amongst pandering to every screaming political faction known all at once, we can find a happy and responsible middle.

Whether the demands of our species &/or rampant unregulated unable-to-think-long-term capitalism gives us time to find that middle however....
 
2012-05-13 04:49:34 AM  
On the one hand, farking with the environment to extract natural resources usually ends badly. On the other hand, we're broke.

Hm. I guess I'm willing for Wyoming to be another sad talking point in some BBC nature documentary, if the nation (read: not Exxon) does actually come out on top.
 
2012-05-13 05:15:23 AM  

HeadLever: Gwyrddu: And that's almost all salt water, fresh water is just a fraction of that.

However, if the economics and need dictate, salt water can be easily made into fresh.


so energy has to be expensive enough to justify investment in all of this new infrastructure for shale drilling, but cheap enough to justify massive amounts of desalination.

don't hold your breath.
 
2012-05-13 07:28:46 AM  

RobertBruce: Even the romans could efficiently move water long distances, including up hill....UNpowered. We could do the same with sea water. No need to waste fresh water on this.


And where do you dump the water when you are done? Does the expression "salt the earth" mean anything to you?

/Google Carthage
 
2012-05-13 07:39:17 AM  

WelldeadLink: tomWright: I have a problem with injecting seawater into the ground. How will the salt affect the aquifer?

The water is being injected into the reservoir which is holding oil. The water can't escape because of the seal across the top which blocks oil from escaping. If this water can escape, so can the oil, so you've already got oil in your aquifer.


Except this is solid oil containing rock surrounded by pourous rick, not liquid oil trapped in pockets of salt.
 
2012-05-13 07:56:02 AM  
In California, the State Water Project delivers 5 billion m3 of water from Northern to Southern California at a cost of 12.4 x 106 MWh of energy per year.1 The high energy requirement is mostly from pumping. The highest pump lift is 1,925 feet with a flow rate of 127 m3/s. While hydroelectric power is able to recover some energy, the pumping energy required still far exceeds the power generated.2 The energy required per cubic meter to import water to Southern California is thus 8.9 MJ/m3.

In Texas, the Texas Water Plan proposes to deliver 15 km3 from the lower Mississippi River to Texas with a pump lift of 2,952 feet and a pumping energy cost of 40 x 106 MWh of energy per year. 1 The energy required per cubic meter to import water to Texas is thus 9.6 MJ/m3.


That's why Texas never put this plan into motion. It required more power than all of Northern Texas used. This included the DFW area.

A typical American uses 80 to 100 gallons of water a day, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The entire country consumes about 323 billion gallons per day of surface water and another 84.5 billion gallons of ground water.

If half of this water came from desalination, the United States would need more than 100 extra electric power plants, each with a gigawatt of capacity.

Depending on local energy prices, 1,000 gallons of desalinated seawater can cost around $3 or $4. Although that might not seem like much, it is still cheaper in many places to pump water out of the ground or import it from somewhere else.


And simply put, the US West does not have enough water. Desal requires far too much energy to produce fresh water. These ideas for extracting this have been floated for half a century. I highly doubt the CRC would allow this to happen, among other entities.

source 1

source 2
 
2012-05-13 08:38:33 AM  
A pipeline from the Pacific? You people can't be serious. Even if a pipeline from the Pacific were feasible, does anyone honestly think the oil companies would pay for such a thing? They would want to get that oil out in the cheapest way possible.
 
2012-05-13 08:40:40 AM  
Hmm, let's see. We import over 4 billion barrels of oil a year, at a cost of about $400 billion a year.

Half of that money ($200 billion a year) goes to countries we hate - or in some cases should hate but are forced to cozy up to. Those countries get rich on imports, and build up their military. Then we have to build up ours to keep them in check. Let's say that we spend as much as we gave the countries we hate ($200 billion) on that; a third of our military budget, for a total cost of $600 billion a year.

I'd argue that that's a step backwards from a national security standpoint. It is safer for us to have a mid sized military and our enemies be poor and defenseless then for us to have a large military and our enemies be wealthy and armed with top of the line equipment.

So over ten years (the standard period for government accounting) those import are degrading our national security and costing us ~ $6 trillion by my back of the envelope approximation. That's 18 times more expensive than ACA (which will cost $340 billion according to CMS actuaries), and 4 times more expensive then the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan (which may not have happened if we had been energy independent!)

So here's the question... if we are going to spend $6 trillion over the next ten years anyway, could we spend it on replacing imports instead, as at the end of those ten years we'd be better off than we are today? $4 trillion of that will come from the proceeds of the energy produced, and $2 trillion will come from a reduction in our military budget (which remember, will INCREASE our national security, as our foes will be forced to reduce their military budgets due to us not buying their oil).

Just using nuclear plants as a baseline, the answer would seem to be yes.

Nuclear plants cost about $7,000 per kWh to construct.. A barrel of oil contains 40 kW. So to replace those 40 kW / barrel * 4 billion barrels / year would require 160 billion kW. We'd need about 250 billion kWh worth of plants to replace that, as unlike oil you can't choose when to burn it, so you need more to cover peak periods. That would cost us almost $2 trillion. Since our budget was $6 trillion, we've got plenty left over to enhance the electrical grid and roll out electric cars and still turn a nice profit on the proceeds from the sale of electricity.

Other options exist as well, such as exploiting shale oil, or manufacturing oil from biological sources. Some percent could be covered by renewable sources. The point though is that if we get serious about tackling our import issue, we could improve our national security AND our government finances, and probably lower the cost of energy at the same time, increasing quality of life for American citizens.

Energy independence is worth going after even if it is tremendously expensive, as we'll come out ahead on this in the long run. Heck, even in the medium run.
 
2012-05-13 08:51:36 AM  
We need to use it up as soon as possible.
 
2012-05-13 09:18:43 AM  

Notabunny: Nationalize it.

Saudi Arabia sells oil domestically for $4 per barrel.

Let's do that, instead of selling our resources to China in order to fatten Exxon's wallet.


If we actually wanted to fix the energy problem by using a "drill baby drill" strategy this is what we would have to do. Right now by allowing the "free market" to control the supply, we are competing with the rest of the world for our own domestic resources. The reason why is this allows the companies to charge the highest price possible and even export the domestic supply to keep the price up if we lower domestic demand, rather than have a domestic surplus. While it would be in the best interest of theUnited States and its citizens, itis the least profitable for the oil companies and thus through their lobbyists would never allow it to happen. They would get Dick Army to mobilize his Tea Party minions to start screaming "socialism" like with healthcare reform.
 
2012-05-13 09:24:26 AM  

Baryogenesis: A pipeline from the Pacific? You people can't be serious. Even if a pipeline from the Pacific were feasible, does anyone honestly think the oil companies would pay for such a thing? They would want to get that oil out in the cheapest way possible.


They would have their lobbyists convince Congress that the pipeline with tax dollars at zero cost to them, then later privatize all the profits screaming "socialism" if we want the government subsidies to actually have them sell the oil domestically to the U.S. consumer at the subsidized price.
 
Displayed 50 of 170 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  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.

Report