UNDER PRESSURE: New techniques to produce gas from vast shale deposits promise electricity generation with fewer greenhouse gas emissions and potential U.S. energy independence--but have contributed to air pollution and other environmental concerns in Texas.
Image: © David Biello
More In This Article
Listen to this Podcast
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
DISH, Tex.—A satellite broadcasting company bought the rights to rename this town a few years ago in exchange for a decade of free television, but it is another industry that dominates the 200 or so residents: natural gas. Five facilities perched on the north Texas town's outskirts compress the gas newly flowing to the surface from the cracked Barnett Shale more than two kilometers beneath the surface, collectively contributing a brew of toxic chemicals to the air.
It is because of places like DISH (formerly known as Clark) and similar sites from Colorado to Wyoming, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has launched a new review of the practice known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking". From compressor stations emitting known human carcinogens such as benzene to the poor lining of wells after drilling that has led some water taps to literally spout flames, the full set of activities needed to produce natural gas gives rise to a panoply of potential problems. The EPA study may examine everything from site selection to the ultimate disposal of the fluids used in fracking.
View a slide show of hydraulic fracturing
The picture from DISH is not pretty. A set of seven samples collected throughout the town analyzed for a variety of air pollutants last August found that benzene was present at levels as much as 55 times higher than allowed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Similarly, xylene and carbon disulfide (neurotoxicants), along with naphthalene (a blood poison) and pyridines (potential carcinogens) all exceeded legal limits, as much as 384 times levels deemed safe. "They're trying to get the pipelines in the ground so fast that they're not doing them properly," says Calvin Tillman, DISH's mayor. "Then you've got nobody looking, so nobody knows if it's going in the ground properly…. You just have an opportunity for disaster here."
DISH sits at the heart of a pipeline network now tuned to exploit a gas drilling boom in the Fort Worth region. The Barnett Shale, a geologic formation more than two kilometers deep and more than 13,000 square kilometers in extent, holds as much as 735 billion cubic meters of natural gas—and the city of Fort Worth alone boasts hundreds of wells, according to Ed Ireland, executive director of the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council, an industry group. "It's urban drilling, so you literally have drilling rigs that are located next door to subdivisions or shopping malls."
Although the first well was drilled in 1982, it took until 2002 for the boom to really get started. Now there are more than 14,000 wells in the Barnett Shale, thanks to a combination of being able to drill horizontally and fracking—pumping water at high pressure deep beneath the ground to literally crack the rock and release natural gas.
"They pump a mixture of water and sand—and half a percent of that is some chemicals, like lubricants," Ireland explains. "They pump that into the formation at a very high pressure. Cracks it just like a windshield. And the cracks go out a couple hundred feet on either side and that forms the pathway for the natural gas to migrate to the well bore and up to the surface."
All that natural gas may prove a boon to a U.S. bid for energy independence. Plus, burning natural gas to produce electricity releases roughly 40 percent less of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide than burning coal. So the question is: Can extracting that natural gas be done safely?
Water pollution
As Ireland notes: "There's never been a documented case of contaminated water supply." That is technically true, but residents of Dimock, Pa., may disagree. That town sits atop the Marcellus Shale—a giant natural gas–laden rock formation that stretches from Tennessee to New York State—and the kind of extraction now going on in Texas is just getting started there. In Dimock, leaks from badly cased wells contaminated drinking water wells—and one even exploded.
It all comes down to the fact that fracking involves a lot of water. There's the at least 11.5 million liters involved in fracking a well in the first place. There's the brine and other fluids that can come to the surface with the natural gas. And there's the problem of what to do with all that waste fluid at the end of the day.
In Dimock's case, Houston-based Cabot Oil and Gas has spilled fracturing fluid, diesel and other fluids, according to Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection. And elsewhere in the state fracturing fluid contamination has been detected in the Monongahela River, which is a source of drinking water. In more common practice, companies dump used fracking fluid back beneath the surface, usually injecting it into other formations beneath the shale. For example, in the case of the Barnett Shale, disposal wells send that water into the deeper Ellenburger Formation.
But there's also the problem of what's actually in the fracking fluid. EPA tests in Wyoming have found suspected fracking fluid chemicals in drinking water wells, and a study by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation identified 260 chemicals used in the process—a review undertaken as the state decides whether to allow such drilling on lands comprising the watershed providing New York City with its drinking water. And Dow Chemical notes that it sells biocides—antimicrobial poisons—to be included in the mix. But companies zealously guard the secret of what exactly makes up their individual "special sauce." It is one of the ways the companies distinguish themselves.
Air pollution
In places where required by law, natural gas companies also distinguish themselves by how they filter out air pollutants. "There's [vapor recovery units] that they can put in place to cut out 95 percent of the emissions from a site," Tillman says. "In states where it's been mandated they do it, and they do it willingly—and they do presentations that show how they're going to comply and how their vapor recovery unit is better than the next guy's vapor recovery unit."
That obviously does not happen in DISH, and a big part of such negligence is a lack of appropriate oversight. For example, after it received complaints the TCEQ sent an SUV with a gas detection unit to drive around Dish for a couple of hours. Despite widespread complaints of odor, the commission found "no leaks that would be detectable to the human nose," Tillman says. "So obviously they're trying to deceive us, they're treating us like we're blooming idiots."
As a result, DISH conducted its own air quality test—at a cost of 15 percent of the town's annual budget of $70,000—that revealed the toxic mix of air pollution. Subsequently, the town petitioned and won the right to install one of seven permanent air monitors in the entire state of Texas. "It's not just writing regulations," Tillman notes. "Somebody has to go out and make sure they're following regulations. And when they're not following regulations, the punishments need to be swift and harsh."
That problem is not confined to the TCEQ or the Railroad Commission of Texas, which through a quirk of history regulates the Lone Star State's oil and gas industries. National laws, like the Safe Drinking Water Act, have been specifically amended to exempt hydraulic fracturing from federal regulation. Yet a New York City analysis of fracking has found that whereas a single fractured natural gas well may do no harm, the hundreds required to exploit shale gas "brings an increased level of risk to the water supply." Plus, although fracking occurs deep below freshwater aquifers, natural cracks "serve as conduits that facilitate migration of contaminants, methane or pressurized fluids."
And it's in the air, too. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission is now conducting tests on roughly 30 residents of DISH to see what might be the human health impacts of this air pollution exposure. And the TCEQ has found high air pollution levels in other nearby towns, such as Decatur, and at individual residences.
Climate savior?
Nevertheless, a 2004 study by the EPA found hydraulic fracturing harmless and the oil industry has been using a roughly similar extraction method since the 1940s. If shale gas can be extracted safely, it might go a long way to cutting back on U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, as acknowledged at the U.N. Copenhagen climate conference this past December by environmentalists such as Christopher Flavin of the Washington, D.C.–based World Resources Institute. "Compared with coal, natural gas allows a 50 to 70 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions," he said. "It's a good complement to the wind and solar generators that will be the backbones of a low-carbon electricity system."
Already, the U.S. produces nearly 600 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), and it estimates proved reserves of natural gas of at least 6.7 trillion cubic meters. The Marcellus Shale alone may have at least 10 trillion cubic meters.
A host of companies have moved in to exploit this resource, and a "few hundred" wildcatters operate in the Barnett Shale alone, according to Ireland. "The wildcatters are the small companies, they have a low overhead, and they can afford to go out and take some risks," he says. "That's been the history of the business and I think that will continue." But major companies have also taken an interest; ExxonMobil hopes to buy natural gas producer XTO Energy pending regulatory approval.
That's because natural gas is becoming more and more the fuel of choice for generating electricity; the DoE expects 21 percent of U.S. electricity to be derived from natural gas by 2035, and by 2034 power plant builder and consulting firm Black & Veatch expects almost half of all U.S. electricity to come from burning natural gas. "I don't see gas shales having an insurmountable environmental problem that is expensive to fix," says Mark Griffith, head of Black & Veatch's power market analysis.
And the gaseous fossil fuel is used for everything from home heating to making plastics and fertilizer. "It's good that we've discovered all this natural gas, because we're going to need it to generate electricity," Ireland says. "Twenty years from now, we're still going to need all the natural gas we can get."
Some, such as Texas oil- and gas-millionaire T. Boone Pickens, have even suggested using this new surfeit of natural gas to help wean the U.S. off foreign oil, turning it into vehicle fuel. Of course, compressed natural gas is already the fuel of choice for many metropolitan area bus fleets.
Ultimately, however, shale gas extraction—and the hydraulic fracturing that goes with it—will have to be done right. "If something comes out that you're poisoning the population, it's going to be a very bad thing," Ireland notes.
The EPA anticipates finishing its latest study of the practice by 2012. "Six months ago, nobody knew that facilities like this would be spewing benzene," Tillman notes. "Someone could come in here and look at us and say, 'You know what? They've sacrificed you. You've been sacrificed for the good of the shale.'"
Editor's Note: David Biello is the host of a forthcoming series on PBS, tentatively titled "The Future of Electricity". The series will explore the coming transformation of how we use and produce electricity, along with its impact on the environment, national security and the economy. He conducted the interviews for this article in conjunction with his work on that series.
See what we're tweeting about
34 Comments
Add CommentGo to:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.pbs.org/now/shows/613/index.html
For a NOW (PBS) video about the hazards of Fracking. From their website:
"This week, NOW talks with filmmaker Josh Fox about "Gasland", his Sundance award-winning documentary on the surprising consequences of natural gas drilling. Fox's filminspired when the gas company came to his hometownalleges chronic illness, animal-killing toxic waste, disastrous explosions, and regulatory missteps."
This article is misleading and hysterical in nature. Service companies have agreed not to use diesel oil which would be the source of benzene.The 2004 EPA study determined that fracking was not responsible for water contamination. Obviuosly if you live over coal beds or shale, methane will leak naturally into the atmosphere. Well casings need to be properly sealed when they are abandoned which eliminates methane leaking into the atmospehere from that source.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't understand why the author cites Ed Ireland's statement that there hasn't been a single documented case of contamination as "technically true" then goes on to cite cases of contamination in Pennsylvania. Which is it? If the cases in Pennsylvania are hearsay and undocumented, then be clearer on that. If they are documented, then don't repeat the lie that they aren't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJournalists should be careful of the distinction between presenting truths from both sides and presenting lies from either side.
There are certainly risks to the environment associated with natural gas being used as an energy source. There are also concerns with other forms of energy production.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo given that virtually everyone agrees that vast amounts of additional electrical power need to be produced......what is the right method???
Hydrofracking in the marcelus shale will be a night mare for the environment and is not the kind of local economic development which is healthy, boom economies for iternerent workers and leathernecks . ( the promise of the wildcatters) As residents of New York State we are faced with drilling sites a stones throw away from the New York watershed repositories. Where zoning rarely allows camping for fear of contamination they are now willing to erect industrial operations .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe state agencies are behaving like desperate brides willing to take any offer of marriage from even the most depraved and low quality suitors. This is a disaster for New York State and PA and the country in general. This extraction method is far more damaging than the traditional natural gag mining ( into pockets) The water will be taken from protected small river systems that are already being pushed, class A trout streams, basically this land is a national treasure and should not be raped and pillaged for short term profits. I urge everyone to really research this issue, the industry is trying to sell you a bill of goods and many DEC (state agencies are in bed with the mineral industry) This is Bad NEWS for human health. Water is what we are made of %99 so this is not a deal we want to make. And they are not mining in a wasteland it is the watershed, it is gods country.
Stay safe and stay informed
resident Delaware county NY
Currently American nuclear power costs 3 cents a kwh (OECD).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBids from Korea to supply 60 years of power to the UAE and AECL to supply the same 60 years to Ontario all costs included are coming in at 1.5 cents a kwh with modern efficient nuke plants and computer control
Since deadly toxic radon gas spewing NG plant is coming in at over 4 cents a kwh why would anybody bother?
Drilling and pipeline leakage from NG is around 2%. Since methane is 25 times as strong a GHG agent as CO2, NG's CO2 contribution is in the same ballpark as coal.
Natural Gas will be the cheapest, cleanest source of energy to bridge the gap between the oil-dependent civilization we live in now and the renewable energy resources we must transition to (will still take decades at best) in the future. Meanwhile, there needs to be stricter environmental codes and stronger enforcement of these codes. Done right, fraking can be quite environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, it only takes a few irresponsible companies to do serious environmental damage ... I suggest fining these guys into oblivion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPyrolyse the gas to seperate the carbon from the hydrogen. Bury the coke in land-fill sites and burn the hydrogen to produce electricity. Result : zero pollution and zero climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(This is not possible for coal of course).
Fracking needs to be done safely.
Another excellent film on natural and coal bed methane gas drilling and the health hazards it poses to the environment and human communities is Split Estate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.splitestate.com/
Fracking cannot be done safely as long as a poisonous cocktail of lubricants is used. Barite is mined for the drilling mud. Indigenous communities in Chiapas are compromised for this practice and at least one protester was assassinated for protesting injustices related to such mining.
http://www.rightsaction.org/articles/mining_assassination_chiapas_120909.html
The disadvantages outweigh the benefits of natural gas when you consider the availability of renewable, non-fossil fuel based technologies.
Another great film on the environmental and health hazards is Split Estate http://www.splitestate.com/.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFracking cannot be done safely. It requires a toxic cocktail of chemical lubricants that worm their way into groundwater. Barite, used for drilling mud, is mined in Chiapas at the cost of human rights and environmental health. One person was recently assassinated for protesting the injustice by Canadian mining company Blackfire in his community.
http://www.splitestate.com/
Given that renewable, non-fossil-fuel based energy technologies exist, there is no excuse for the rampant destruction by oil and gas companies.
Actually what you suggest is equally possible for coal. Thousand degree steam over coal produces hydrogen and carbon dioxide via partial oxidation/steam reformation. Then sequester the CO2. That is what the coal industry calls their FutureGen program.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a good overview of the future of natural gas in a greening energy economy and the local effects of a natural gas boom check out haynesvillemovie.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out Ecosphere ESPH Clean water technology for fracking wells
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishydraulic fracturing...when will we wake up and stop the destruction of our country, and ultimately the destruction of ourselves. The United States needs to follow Europe's lead. Wind and sun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Fate of Fossil Fuels
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProponents tout the benefits of fracking - natural gas is a "cleaner" way to produce energy than coal is, and by some estimates there may be enough natural gas trapped in the country's shale to supply us for 100 years. Opponents cite exploding tap water and a long list of chemicals infused into the ground during the fracking process, many of which are reportedly appearing in people's well water.
I can only believe that if we can put men on the moon and a rover on Mars, we can figure out a way to drill for crude oil a mile below the ocean's surface and extract natural gas from shale. Safely. Without destroying our environment, polluting our water, or making our pets and kids sick.
http://www.arizonaic.org/blog/257-arizona-investment-council-blog-fate-of-fossil-fuels
First, I wasn't enthusiast to the idea of shale gas. I though that was another "scam" just to make money regardless of the environnement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow I have to admit, natural gas does LESS environnmental damage that coal, be it CO2 or heavy metals spewing. Furthermore, all this will cost nothing more than coal, it may even cost less.
My point is that we have limited means and we have to do the best we can for the environnment. An all in renewables will cost too much and do little. I say save the most we can now, after we'll try to save more.
Now I understand drilling for shale gas is risky and can cause environnmental concerns, but don't forget the learning curve: it may improve over time because theses problems are indirect (coal will always emit CO2 and to some extent heavy metals).
Shale gas is not perfect right now but could be way better than coal in the short term, that is what matter the most for me.
First, I wasn't enthusiast to the idea of shale gas. I though that was another "scam" just to make money regardless of the environnement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow I have to admit, natural gas does LESS environnmental damage that coal, be it CO2 or heavy metals spewing. Furthermore, all this will cost nothing more than coal, it may even cost less.
My point is that we have limited means and we have to do the best we can for the environnment. An all in renewables will cost too much and do little. I say save the most we can now, after we'll try to save more.
Now I understand drilling for shale gas is risky and can cause environnmental concerns, but don't forget the learning curve: it may improve over time because theses problems are indirect (coal will always emit CO2 and to some extent heavy metals).
Shale gas is not perfect right now but could be way better than coal in the very short term, that is what matter the most for me.
The most obvious incongruity here is the claim that the fracking fluid formulas must be "kept secret". These are industrial chemicals that are being pumped into the public domain. If this were drycleaning fluid at your neighborhood cleaners, it would come with a materials data sheet, denoting all of its components, proprietary or not. Let them get patents if the stuff is so wonderfully unique.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat we know is that it is possible to do fracking in a way that pollutes water and air. it is also possible to do fracking in a way that does not pollute water or air. rather than condemn the process because it is possible to do it wrong, we should demand that if it be done, it be done right, with no pollution. The alternative for now is the ravages of continued addiction to global oil, which is both economically and environmentally unacceptable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscan fracking be done safely if a non-poisonous lubricant is used? I mean is it possible, not whether some companies do a bad job of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMexicans need to regulate the mining in Chiapas... we need to reduce our dependence on oil, and quickly, and solar, wind, and hemp are not enough. we need nat gas.
I am amazed that this drilling technique called "fracking" is so evil. You are pumping very large quantities of poison into the ground that eventually mixes with the ground water. Oh well, once the well is "fracked," then it ought to produce for a long while, and the damage is done, right? Wrong, a well can be "fracked" a dozen times during it's life-time. I am trying to fathom the psychology of a people who allow their ground water to be poisoned...it doesn't bode well for our continued existence in the remote future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a resident of Sullivan County who has an out of state neighbor who sold drilling rights. The map of where they want to put the well is across the street from my house.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a 6 year old daughter and will now have to spend $1,000 to have my well tested prior to any drilling.
If my water goes bad I will have to litigate to recover for damages.
What gives anyone or company the right to do such a thing.
I will have to prove that my well went bad at my own expense.
I recently found out that banks are not issuing mortgages in Sullivan county near the proposed drilling sites. What kind of clear message does that send.
If fracking is safe then why are the gas companies so afraid of being included in the clean air and water acts. Because it's not safe. What makes it not safe is that the companies are not held accountable for their " accidents", they sigh back alley deals with people effected and make them sign non disclosure agreements to keep them quiet.
I think they should get the Frack out of my neighborhood.
The solution is to tax non renewable energy and subsidize renewable energy. Let the big gas and oil companies become stewards of the planet. We will still pay them for energy and they will do the planet a service.
Is this the same EPA that worked for the Bush Administration. We all know that they put yes men and bible thumpers in key positions and anything that the EPA studied under Dick Cheney should be restudied by credible scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBack then Global Warming did not exist and we were in the last throws of the insurgency.
Natural Gas is more catastrophic to the enviroment. Naturaal gas is essentially methane. Methane is 70x more potent as a greenhouse gas and reacts with orther molecules. When methane is burned, co2 is emitted. However the leakis from the extraction and transportation of natural gas make it laughabel that it could be safer than the burning of fossil fuels. Methane is the second largest contributer of greenhouse gases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts really odd that we would want to free natural gas (methane) from shale when it is effectively being sequestered in the rock itself and poses no risk to the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times more dangerous than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Doesn't it make sense to just leave it in the ground? Just another example that common sense does not prevail when compared to corporate profit motives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm so tired of hearing that there's no "direct" evidence that blah blah blah. Fracking causes contamination of water. Some part of the process causes it. Accidents, spills, fracking itself, I don't care. And it's not just water and sand pumped into the earth; it's 4.5 MILLION gallons of water on average and .5% (22,500 GALLONS) of endocrine distrupters and carcinogens. 20% (5,000 Gallons) comes back up and has to be disposed of (in landfills, to de-ice the roads, diluted and dumped in the rivers, or injected to existing wells.) Barnett Shale is different from Marcellus shale; the geology is different; the technology is only 7 years old (forget that 60 year history--this is a new process altogether). Every place the frackers go, there are problems. The Susquehanna River is suddenly bubbling methane from its bed just a mile downstream from a drill site. The UN declared recently that humans have the right to clean water. The PA Constitution states that citizens have the right to clean air, clean water, and the beauty of the landscape for generations to come...Hydraulic fracturing violates our rights as citizens and as humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://vimeo.com/14295502
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishear it from an industry professional (retired) this is not in any way safe
AS someone who lives in the Marcellus Shale region, I can say that this practice has enormous deleterious impacts on human and animal life. I personally know people who have become ill from drinking contaminated water and breathing air containing benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. We are poisoning our own population for natural gas. Nothing, nothing is worth this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is nothing good about this type of gas removal. It is a dirty, polluting industry fraught with problems. These multi-nationally owned, limited liability companies care only for getting the gas out of the ground quickly and cheaply. New York is still trying to clean up industrial Superfund sites from years ago. (Note: one of the many environmental protection laws they have been handily exempted from.) Have we learned nothing? I built a house in a watershed and had to put in an engineered septic system to protect the lake. We seek to safeguard our wetlands, streams and waterways from sewage, chemicals, and invasive species but allow gas companies to lease, drill and spill anywhere they want?! What are the environmental repercussions of pulling millions upon millions of gallons of clean water from our local water supplies to be forever contaminated with poisons? Water is a finite resource. T. Boone Pickens, Mr. Oil and Gas, apparently considers water to be "the new oil" and is quietly buying it up. He reportedly owns more water than anyone in America. ( http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_25/b4089040017753.htm) Doesn't that tell us something? Fresh water is becoming increasingly scarce all over the world. It must be protected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are the effects on air quality, health, wildlife, property values and agriculture? There are too many unanswered questions and too many politicians who have been paid to look the other way. We, the people, should not be sacrificed for corporate greed.
ENKI109 : Hydrocarbon-Pyrolysis hydrogen and Coal-originated hydrogen are not the same. Pyrolysing hydrocarbons produces hydrogen and coke which can be safely put in landfill. Reacting steam and coal produces hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which, when burnt, produces water and CO2, causing climate change. This is why hydrogen-powered vehicles pollute as much as gasoline-powered vehicles, UNLESS the hydrogen is produced by pyrolysis!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. There have been oceans, tropical swamps and huge ice sheets within what is now the continental US. There have been times when polar ice caps have been non-existent. And it happened when there were no people, no automobiles, and no fossil fuels being burned. There is no such thing as "no climate change"!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this..and bankruptcy!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck your state regulations - in many areas the resource companies are required to inventory and sample/test nearby water sources at no cost to the resident. Where I live in WV there is a "rule of presumption" which basically states that if a water supply within 1000 feet of a gas well is contaminated, the company is presumed guilty unless they can prove they did not affect the water supply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a really good article, thank you for posting this information. I was looking for <a href="http://www.lichy.com/services/roof_waterproof_expert_services.html">roof consultants</a> to help us out and came across this article. Very informative, fracking can be a dangerous job to work with all of those chemicals. Good luck and thanks for posting!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this