The Oil Industry's Covert Campaign To Rewrite American Car Emissions Rules (nytimes.com) 304
When the Trump administration laid out a plan this year that would eventually allow cars to emit more pollution, automakers, the obvious winners from the proposal, balked. The changes, they said, went too far even for them. But it turns out that there was a hidden beneficiary of the plan that was pushing for the changes all along: the nation's oil industry. From an investigation by The New York Times: In Congress, on Facebook and in statehouses nationwide, Marathon Petroleum, the country's largest refiner, worked with powerful oil-industry groups and a conservative policy network financed by the billionaire industrialist Charles G. Koch to run a stealth campaign to roll back car emissions standards, a New York Times investigation has found. The campaign's main argument for significantly easing fuel efficiency standards -- that the United States is so awash in oil it no longer needs to worry about energy conservation -- clashed with decades of federal energy and environmental policy.
"With oil scarcity no longer a concern," Americans should be given a "choice in vehicles that best fit their needs," read a draft of a letter that Marathon helped to circulate to members of Congress over the summer. Official correspondence later sent to regulators by more than a dozen lawmakers included phrases or sentences from the industry talking points, and the Trump administration's proposed rules incorporate similar logic. The industry had reason to urge the rollback of higher fuel efficiency standards proposed by former President Barack Obama. A quarter of the world's oil is used to power cars, and less-thirsty vehicles mean lower gasoline sales.
"With oil scarcity no longer a concern," Americans should be given a "choice in vehicles that best fit their needs," read a draft of a letter that Marathon helped to circulate to members of Congress over the summer. Official correspondence later sent to regulators by more than a dozen lawmakers included phrases or sentences from the industry talking points, and the Trump administration's proposed rules incorporate similar logic. The industry had reason to urge the rollback of higher fuel efficiency standards proposed by former President Barack Obama. A quarter of the world's oil is used to power cars, and less-thirsty vehicles mean lower gasoline sales.
You mean Big Oil has been LYING to us? Holy.. (Score:5, Funny)
You know, it's one thing for Republicans to lie to our faces about this stuff, fraud and treason etc, but when a trusted business sector like Big Oil lies, that kind of betrayal is truly inexcusable. (Unless well-paid to excuse it, of course.)
Re:You mean Big Oil has been LYING to us? Holy.. (Score:5, Interesting)
But, but what about "enhancing shareholder value", that is what Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics have taught our business leaders is their ONLY ethical concern.
Could it be that our entire business educational system has been corrupted by people who do not care if "people" live or die?
Maybe, Milton Friedman was the real Terminator
Root cause (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a culture where we tolerate lying when someone is trying to make a quick buck.
Businesses should tell the truth? Why do you hate capitalism? insert other facetious arguments here, etc
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you're being far too selective. Sadly we have a overall culture willing to tell virtually any lie that they think people will believe to get their way. Pro-life nuts will tell you that people are getting abortions for the shear fun of it, Gun control nuts will tell you that your children are in more danger than soldiers in a war zone, "tough on crime" nuts will tell you that everyone who goes to prison is a hardened criminal who will kill you as soon as look at you, etc, etc. We have systemic pr
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The general shitty behavior of our society isn't new, although the degree waxes and wanes over the decades.
"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor
Thank You, Oil Industry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't the ones buying a driving the cars, or buying the products from China.
Re:Thank You, Oil Industry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank You, Oil Industry (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with your post, but would go a step further and challenge even the assumption that we need plastics. The beverage industry was around for like a hundred years before plastic bottles. Food can be happily wrapped with wax paper, and electronics used to be housed in wooden cases. I'm not suggesting that we abandon all plastic, but if we were to regress packaging back to around the time of 1970, we would MASSIVELY reduce the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently the happy medium in this case because of greater numbers of electric vehicles that don't pollute, the remaining infernal combustion engines can pollute even more, where the fuckity fucking fuck is the balance in that, that is entirely fucking psychopathically insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thank You, Oil Industry (Score:5, Insightful)
It's almost as if you want to drive an SUV specifically because 'liberals' don't want you to. You big baby.
False choice (Score:5, Insightful)
The choice isn't between oil and no oil. There is a middle ground where we regulate industry, control pollution, and use resources in a way that compensates everyone for the damage it causes. Wild west, zero responsibility bullshit isn't a serious business model even if idiots are serious about defending it.
Re: (Score:2)
The choice isn't between oil and no oil. There is a middle ground where we regulate industry, control pollution, and use resources in a way that compensates everyone for the damage it causes. Wild west, zero responsibility bullshit isn't a serious business model even if idiots are serious about defending it.
If this compensation is anything like the crazy numbers I hear for reparations and the like then I suspect that you'll get no takers and nothing is solved.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm curious how you associate this with Reparations for slavery [wikipedia.org], or is that an unrelated tangent that happens to be on your mind? OK, I'll bite.
It would be very easy to work out a simple number for reparations that is mathematically fair, but would require second civil war to enforce. Does that mean that decedents of slaves were never actually wronged? I think it has more to do with money being more important than our cultural ideals of egalitarianism. Says more about us than about the people proposing repa
Re: (Score:3)
And Marathon tried to push that middle ground in their direction a bit, just like every other industry in the country. What's the problem?
* Big Oil is shirking responsibility (and costs) for environmental sustainability -> taxpayers become responsible for cleaning up the mess.
* Marathon has the lobbyist funding to actually make a difference in their favor, taxpayers do not.
Re: Thank You, Oil Industry (Score:3, Insightful)
Oil was useful. Was.
Now, it has been supplanted, just as bronze was supplanted.
Nobody needs to die young from a lack of oil today, we use it for nothing that we can't do better, quicker and more cheaply by other means.
We have the technology. I can't stop America regressing into the Bronze Age, it's just a stupid and unnecessary place to be when they could be in the Information Age. Americans, for the most part, well half of them anyway, are better than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Your grandchildren live in a wonderful world thanks to Oil.
I realise I'm probably feeding a troll, but here goes...
I agree that oil is pretty much the one thing that has brought us to the "modern age", but we have - and are continuing to pay the price for the way things are. Interestingly, most of what you point out can be dealt with without using so much oil. I know that we can't just shut off the spigot, but we need to cut back. We're trashing the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me again, who is President and who still controls the Senate?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"A middle class was not possible until the energy freedom that oil provided" Instantly debunked bullshit, next?
It was so instant that I missed your evidence that debunked it.
Re:Thank You, Oil Industry (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you know that time hasn't stopped?
Also, did you know that unregulated capitalism has some issues, like setting rivers on fire?
Re: Thank You, Oil Industry (Score:3)
Penicillin made the world a better place, too, but when you're well you don't take it. Further, now we understand more, we understand it's quite harmful when abused.
Who worries about scarcity? (Score:5, Informative)
Conveniently omitting to mention pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as remaining concerns.
Re:Who worries about scarcity? (Score:4, Informative)
Conveniently omitting to mention pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as remaining concerns.
I would like to point out that this USED to be a question of national security too. Because the nation's infrastructure ran on oil and we used more than we produced, we where at high risk if there where supply disruption, say because of some bad things happening half a world away. So, the initial emission standards and mileage requirements where driven into regulations long before the Climate Change argument was a thing.
I know a lot of you folks didn't live though the oil embargo's of the 70's, when we got blessed with the 55 MPH speed limits and Jimmy Carter's national regulations that mandated how cold you could set the AC and how hot you could run the heater. I remember waiting in lines to get gas too.
So environmental concerns where only part of the reason we have the CAFE standards. Some of those reasons don't exist now.
The question is now that we have one less reason, does that justify relaxing the standards? Maybe, maybe not, but it sure makes it a harder sell to increase the CAFE mileage standards...
Re: Who worries about scarcity? (Score:2)
It's still a matter of national security.
Nobody buys American cars because they're seen to be unreliable and uneconomic.
Validating that belief endangers thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of jobs and places America at the mercy of countries the President has seriously upset.
Yes, that could be considered national security.
Re:Who worries about scarcity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also conveniently ignoring that there are numerous other things on this earth that were once in great abundance that are now notably vastly reduced, or sometimes gone entirely.
Or do they really think that every creature that was hunted to the brink of extinction, or even wiped out entirely, was never very populous to begin with?
Or, hell... let's just talk about clean freshwater. Sure there's a lot of it, but that doesn't mean that it's always going to be there if we keep polluting the hell out of the supply that we have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems pretty obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
The American auto industry is barely moving forward on EVs -- not that they're the be all to end all, but c'mon. The tech has been around longer than gas-powered vehicles and yet, even with modern lithium-ion batteries, car companies don't offer more than two models each -- most only offer one.
It's going to take regulation to force their hand; that seems obvious. With the current administration kowtowing to big business, though, we won't be seeing any movement on this for at least another two years.
Re: Seems pretty obvious (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Seems pretty obvious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or a world in which the middle class demand to be paid better.
The average price of a new car, according to Experian, is $34,000
Re: (Score:2)
For the Model 3, maybe. For an X, even with unlimited free supercharging, compared with a $27k RAV4 hybrid, the break-even point is still at a whopping 730,000 miles.
Re: (Score:2)
At $35k, maybe. Not at $100k.
Even a non-hybrid SUV still gets 20+ MPH, which is about 15 cents a mile, on average, in the U.S. And even pure synthetic oil will cost less than $100 every 5,000 miles, which still adds less than two cents per mile. So even if you *massively* overestimate the total cost at 20 cents a mile, and even if your electrical power is completely free, it still takes 375,000 miles to cover the $75,000 difference between a Model X and a non-hybrid SUV.
Add in the extra several hundred
Re: (Score:2)
And yet Tesla is selling Model 3s as fast as they can make them, and every other car company is scrambling to follow their lead. It appears Tesla's only mistake (or perhaps it was deliberate?) was to announce a lower price-point than they could immediately sell the product at -- but that doesn't mean they won't ever be able to sell cars at that price.
Currently most of the cost of an electric car is its battery pack, and battery technology is getting better and cheaper every year. Unless there is some unav
Re: (Score:2)
Would not work anyway. (Score:4, Insightful)
Then consider automakers would have to make different cars for states with strict standards and cars violating those standards would not be allowed in the state as they would not be grandfather claused.
Then consider that if automakers were to have 6 years to bring new fuel guzzling designs to market before (worst case scenario) Trump leaves office. And since almost universally, republican president = Democrat Congress and vise versa. So, within 6 years, either the executive or the legislative branches will be in opposition to the new regulations.
So, any car company who would take advantage of this opportunity would be run by idiots with no foresight. This would be corporate suicide. I mean I am sitting here laughing my ass off wondering who would invest years of R&D in a new drive train that would almost certainly be made illegal within weeks of it reaching market and could not be sold or operated in more than a small region.
Any leasing company willing to back these cars would be criminally incompetent and any banks willing to finance these vehicles would be suicidal.
I mean, who thinks these things up?
Air Pollution is still a Concern (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if you don't care about CO2 and global climate change, there's still the localized issue of actual air pollution in cities especially which kills. I drive a plugin electric and notice gas fumes and other nasty things in the air from cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be because you can't smell the exhaust from the power station that powers your car.
Re: (Score:2)
It is fun, you get it.
The insurance industry will have their way with EVs too. 100Ds won't be sold in ten years. Nothing like them will be.
Oil scarcity (Score:5, Informative)
Implying that "oil scarcity" is the reason behind these regulations seems like such an obvious straw man that at first I figured everyone would see through it immediately... but then I realized this letter was targeted at Congress.
Let them put their money where their mouth is (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As I said... it would be putting their money where their mouth is.
That is, what other companies are doing shouldn't matter... if they sell less cars because the competitors who aren't following those guidelines are undercutting them, then so be it.
Of course, they aren't going to do that... so they aren't actually bitching about the restrictions being lifted as if they cared about the environment as much as they are bitching about how lifting the restrictions makes it harder for them to continue be prof
Cowards (Score:5, Interesting)
Congress does CAFE because they are cowards. A car with higher efficiency can be driven more on the same gas. It does not reduce consumption by existing cars. If you genuinely believe in the cause, the only thing to advocate is taxation of fuel. A tax increase for the social cost of gasoline is something like $3.80 a gallon, more than doubling the current price. C'mon true believes, don't put off saving the planet for decades, bite the bullet and advocate that tax increase.
This increased consumer costs (Score:2)
Fun fact: if Big Oil hadn't done this, we'd be paying half as much for filling our tanks, and those of us who would have already transitioned to $6000 EVs made in China and Taiwan would be paying between 1/10th and 1/40th as much, plus paying half the maintenance fees.
You got ripped off big time.
(caveat: I have invested and owned direct stocks in fossil fuel firms (oil,gas,ethanol,coal,biomass) and in automobile and airplane firms)
TFA seems to be confusing emission and efficiency (Score:2)
I mean granted, they both start with the letter E, but other than that they are completely different concepts. Even this lunkhead at NYT should've been able to grasp the difference.
Yes Trump administration sought to reduce the fuel-efficiency requirements. Yes the oil industry lobbied hard for it, more fuel used by people = more money for them. But this is a fuel EFFICIENCY issue. Not emissions. Emission means air pollution. You can have an inefficient car that gets very low miles per gallon, and yet have a
Gov't, Regulation, Commissions and AGW (Score:2)
ALL designed to facilitate commerce - except AGW. That bitch be an equal opportunity hottie. AGW will disrupt ALL.
You and me alone can't stop AGW but sure as hell the collective WE can stop commerce that feeds it. Money matters; its all that matters. Spend unwise, waste your life - waste a planet; Woke, spend wisely, stop AGWcommerce save a planet - save a life.
Koch brothers need investigation (Score:2)
National Security (Score:2)
A case could be made that the US should restrict exploration and production domestically, as well as keep progressing with auto efficiency standards. The list of oil producers after the US is pretty consistent with a list of our adversaries. Why not use their oil in the present, and leave ours in the ground for the years when oil begins to become more scarce?
Ideally we would be looking out for the long term well being of the United States of America which is why whether it's Facebook or Marathon Oil, we s
This is good for the environment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm thinking that you should have referred to it as a "Poorly regulated industry", or "Under regulated industry"
Re: (Score:2)
The point, apparently lost on you, was that the oil companies were pushing the reduced pollution controls, not that a regulated industry lobbies for its own interests.
Re:It's not covert, they were over-bearing (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's true then the rules are not too harsh.
Re:It's not covert, they were over-bearing (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, China's a special case; China has a tendency to write strict sounding but vague laws, then enforce those laws in what *appears* to be a very spotty way. This is, in fact, how the party exerts control over people while adopting a progressive sounding posture. Everyone's guilty of something, so people keep away from things that will seriously antagonize the party. The party doesn't need to install zampolits everywhere like the Soviets did; uncertainty makes people into their own political commissars.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice drive-by there! But the "Obama" standards are trivial to meet. But now we overtly let the industry run the government. Unfortunately it is politically incorrect to place the blame where it belongs. Introspection is not a thing to be discussed in mixed company.
Re: (Score:2)
"But now we overtly let the industry run the government."
Think of it as cutting out the middleman.
Re: It's not covert, they were over-bearing (Score:3)
You understand that in 2010, engineers demonstrated a car capable of carrying two adults, two children and a load of luggage at 100 mph with a fuel efficiency of 100 mpg?
X-Tracer managed a 205.3 mpg motorcycle carrying a comparable load.
We could be driving those, today. In eight years, that could have been mainstream.
Even the European cars, generally twice as economic as American ones, would be an improvement. American cars aren't instigated for poor reliability and high cost, they're not as efficient as an
Re: (Score:2)
"In the end it will not matter as electric car adoption will more than make up for any extra emissions from rolling back the rules."
This is not unlike saying that StuporKendall's idiot takes can be more than made up by his posting volume. Electric car adoption is not a given, rolling back regulations is an effort to thwart it.
I guess if everyone lowers their standards enough then no one will be disappointed. Here StuporKendall is way out front.
Re: (Score:3)
Harsh? Depends on whose perspective you're taking. As the standards currently stand, many cities such as New York are enjoying air quality that would be unimaginably good thirty years ago.. But there are still a number of cities that aren't there yet, like LA, Pittsburgh, and Indianapolis.
One of Obama's major policy goals was energy independence. He was very pro-fracking, despite its extreme unpopularity with the Democratic base. He wanted US natural gas exports would to Russian "gas diplomacy" in Europe.
Re:It's not covert, they were over-bearing (Score:5, Informative)
And just think of the increased revenue from gas taxes! That ought to soothe any ruffled liberal feathers.
Hey, gotta cover the shortfall from the Republican's trillion dollars added to the deficit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what liberal morons (redundant, I know) actually believe!
Yep - That's because we live in a world of FACTS as opposed to Conservative Fantasyland where facts don't matter.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/ma... [foxbusiness.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Damn gas tax. Having paved roads is so unnecessary and is part of the liberal agenda of dependency.
I'll simply use my 4x4 on dirt roads or pay tolls along a beautiful private road system.
Re: (Score:2)
Road tax revenue does not have to come from a tax on any particular fuel and you damned well know that, ya deceptive cunt.
Voters ought to get pissed if the government uses road tax for something other than roads.
Now fuel tax can be used for lots of things, today a big part of it is roads. It sure is nice to drive over a bridge instead of fording several creeks every day. Could conceivably come from property tax or general fund. Which will be helpful in the future when few people are buying gas. Until then electric car owners get to skip out on an important tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Air infused with toxic carcinogenic combustion byproducts.
Which combustion byproduct are you thinking is carcinogenic? CO2? H2O? maybe even NOX?
Re: (Score:2)
Not the AC, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the combustion exhaust components that contribute to SMOG are not cancer causing, at least not directly. I was asking for a specific component in exhaust that was of concern?
More to the point, the issue isn't really cancer, but other things. And in the USA smog has been greatly reduced since the 70's, and I mean GREATLY. In some cases the problem is becoming more and more caused by natural processes than man made emitters.
It's been an ignored fact that in the USA we've gone to great strides and
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the emissions have become smaller and smaller PM over the decades. Therefore, the large particles have been removed but now there are PM 10 and PM 2.5 particles being emitted. The PM 2.5 are small enough to cross from the lungs to the blood stream which is dangerous for human life.
Re: (Score:2)
But, which ones cause cancer?
Re: (Score:2)
"Most of the combustion exhaust components that contribute to SMOG are not cancer causing, at least not directly. I was asking for a specific component in exhaust that was of concern?"
Smog is known to increase cancer risk. The question isn't what "most components" do or even which components might be carcinogenic. One has to wonder why you would challenge such a statement. It doesn't take a majority of combustion waste products to be a problem.
"More to the point, the issue isn't really cancer, but other
Re: Exhaust == Cancer (Score:3)
Nitrates and nitrites are listed as known carcinogens, yes.
Of course, car fuel has a whole bunch of additives these days and it's not always obvious how carcinogenic those are.
Re: (Score:2)
So NOx is your main concern?
Finally, somebody who has a reasonable answer... Yes, but these compounds are already being reduced though the various emissions controls including the catalytic converters in modern vehicles. In fact, GREATLY reduced by these measures, especially in gasoline engines.
Remember the VW getting caught cheating thing? This was about NOx emissions (among other things). VW had supposedly developed an engine that didn't require the urea injection NOx reduction systems of other diese
Re: Exhaust == Cancer (Score:2)
Combustion will rarely be complete, not enough oxygen. So you'll have lots of CO and other highly reactive byproducts.
Re: (Score:2)
And which of those cause cancer?
CO is not a cancer risk is it? Surely CO2 and H2O are not an issue right?
BTW, With modern catalytic converters, most of that incomplete combustion and CO emissions are eliminated before they are emitted. Which is pretty much the whole point of that emissions control stuff...
Re: (Score:2)
Oxygen (O2) ages cells and causes cancer as well. Demanding zero cancer in the world is unreasonable. It is OK to weigh harm and benefits and make an informed choice. The reason we're up in arms about industry lobbyists is they are hiding information from us and making all the choices. We're both under-informed and unable to choose.
Re:Stop worrying about how to force other people (Score:4, Insightful)
Boy are you going to get it...
My personal perspective is that we need to work on Fusion reactors for electric power generation. It would produce nearly unlimited power for very little environmental impacts and nearly zero CO2 emissions. All we need is more R&D dollars... We KNOW it can be done, we just haven't fully figured out the engineering to make it happen. Also, why are we not shoving up Nuclear power plants as fast as mini-malls until then....
I'm guessing that the idea here is to control folks, not actually fix the stated issue, and THAT's why we are not really serious..
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Just so it's TOTALY clear... When you say "explode" you are discussing hydrogen explosions which are only possible concerns in very extreme situations in nuclear power plants. Modern designs do NOT suffer from the same issues as the various operating reactors in the USA today.
The only reason why we don't have modern nuclear reactors in operation here in the USA is because the "environmentalist" lobby has basically made it too expensive. It's not dangerous.
I remember being a college student during the f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are different forms of critical mass, nuclear reactors do not have the ability to cause a nuclear explosion as they are NOT prompt critical, but moderated critical.
In order to cause a nuclear explosion you have to have a critical mass that is prompt critical, where unmoderated neutrons can sustain the chain reaction. This requires a very fast assembly of the critical mass, because you need to get the device prompt critical before it disassembles itself from the heat of being moderated critical, wher
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Stop worrying about how to force other people (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just it, though. Lithium is a commodity, and it is not that rare. Its price is set by the countries that mine the stuff, but the only thing preventing new mines from starting up is cost. Until the price hits certain points, some Lithium isn't worth bothering with. The moment it crosses certain thresholds, companies will start mining, and the price will stabilize. It won't go up forever.
BTW, the reason BEVs cost more is primarily economies of scale. Tesla's battery costs have come down fairly dr
Re: (Score:2)
Also ICE car production will reduce (such as Ford and GM now no longer making most of their sedans) causing "new" car buyers to wait for a suitable EV to come to market or to buy a second-hand ICE car. Some people predict a short-fall in the number of new cars produced around 2023 when the total number of available new cars reaches a minimum. Also at this point an oil crisis occurs due to an oil glut due to fewer ICE cars being on the road and the oil price collapses.
You would of thought low oil prices will
Delusion? Let's look at some numbers (Score:2)
The average selling price of a new car in the US is $35k. A new Nissan Leaf is going for $31k (local dealer, before incentives or tax credits). So you can already get an EV at a lower price than the average new car. ICE cars have been increasing in price; EVs have been decreasing.
Once there are enough EVs on the road, battery replacements will become commonplace, and prices of used EVs will become very affordable.
Re: (Score:3)
IMO what doesn't work is half-assed government coercion, like raising the gas mileage requirements for cars, but leaving a loop-hole in there (on purpose) for trucks and SUV's.
If we didn't have government coercion forcing companies to stop polluting our water whenever they felt like it, most of us probably wouldn't be here today. It sounds like the fresh water in the US, while still somewhat polluted, is a hell of a lot cleaner than it used to be back before the EPA. When it comes to really large corporatio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)