Majia on The
BP Gulf Oil Spill
On April 20,
2010, BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, producing the largest oil spill
in American history. The blow-out occurred 5,000 feet below the surface,
complicating efforts to contain the mega-disaster that followed. At least 4.9
million barrels of oil were released into the Gulf of Mexico before the well
was capped 87 days after the initial explosion.[i]
This figure does not include releases of methane and other gasses, which are
estimated to have constituted at least a third of the petroleum hydrocarbons released
by the well.[ii]
BP sprayed at
least 1.9 million gallons of toxic dispersants to break the oil up into small
molecules.[iii]
Corexit 9527A and 9500A, manufactured by Nalco, were the
primary dispersants used.[iv]
The EPA asked BP to stop spraying this dispersant after concerns were raised
about its toxicity, but the EPA subsequently waived its ban when BP claimed no
other dispersant was available in adequate quantity.[v]
In point of fact, the EPA actually had limited control over BP’s use of these
dispersants, as reported by Wendy Sheppard in Mother Jones
In the case of dispersants, companies must ask the EPA for permission to
use specific products—but the only basis for approval is whether those products
are effective at breaking up oil. Companies are required to test the short-term
toxicity of the dispersant and the oil-dispersant mixture on shrimp and fish,
but those results have no bearing on approval, and there's no requirement to
assess the long-term impact. In fact, it's the EPA that must prove an "unreasonable
risk" if it wants companies to disclose what is in
the dispersant—hard to do when the agency, you know, doesn't know what's in it.[vi]
Sheppard
quotes Richard Denison, senior scientists with the Environmental Defense Fund,
who remarks that "We have a chemical policy that essentially has required
very little testing and very little evidence of safety for pretty much all
chemicals on the market, and that covers dispersants." The Toxic
Substances Control Act, passed in 1976, grandfathered in 84,000 chemicals whose
risks have yet to be tested or disclosed.[vii]
Corexit 9527A
and 9500A have acute neurotoxic effects, according to a 1987 report published
by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health titled “Organic
Solvent Neurotoxicity.”[viii]
The Materials Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Corexit 9527A states that “excessive exposure may cause central nervous system effects, nausea,
vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects," and "repeated or excessive
exposure to butoxyethanol [an active ingredient] may cause injury to red blood
cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver." Furthermore, both forms of
Corexit are acknowledged in their MSDS to bio-accumulate in marine life.[ix]
Marine biologist, Dr. Riki Ott, who had studied the health
aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, publicly warned that Corexit is toxic
for humans during its application in the Gulf over the summer of 2010.[x]
Susan Shaw, a marine toxicologist and
Director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute summarized the dangers
of Corexit in a New York Times editorial:
Though
all dispersants are potentially dangerous when applied in such volumes, Corexit
is particularly toxic. It contains petroleum solvents and a chemical that, when
ingested, ruptures red blood cells and causes internal bleeding. It is also
bioaccumulative, meaning its concentration intensifies as it moves up the food
chain.[xi]
This deliberate cover-up of health risks was discussed in a Democracy Now interview with Environmental Activist Jerry Cope titled "The Crime of the Century:
What BP and US Government Don’t Want You to Know" and in another
interview with Democracy Now, EPA
whistleblower Hugh Kaufman accused the EPA of deliberately hiding the dangers
of the dispersant Corexit, which the EPA authorized BP to spray directly on the
submerged oil leak and which the U.S. Coast Guard sprayed from airplanes upon
the Gulf’s surface.[xii]
Although
warnings abounded about the health dangers of the oil and Corexit, little
action was taken to warn and protect residents and tourists in the region. Beach-goers
in the Gulf region risked exposure to oil and Corexit at popular beaches the
government refused to close. A television station, WKRG in Alabama, conducted
independent testing of the oil levels found in sand and water at popular
beaches.[xiii]
While 11 parts per million of oil is
considered toxic, their samples all showed readings in the toxic
level, ranging from 16 ppm to 221 ppm. Tragically,
one child was playing in water at Orange Beach that registered 221 ppm.
By the spring
of 2011, scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and various
universities were concluding that the Corexit actually increased the toxicity
of the oil while failing to actually eliminate it. Accordingly, Dr. Susan Laramore, an assistant
professor at Florida’s Atlantic University’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institute, claimed that her research results were “backwards of what the oil
companies are reporting."[xiv]
Furthermore, researchers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts
concluded in January of 2011 that 800,000 gallons of Corexit applied underwater
at the well-head did nothing to break up the oil and polluted the ecosystem,
persisting far longer than expected.[xv]
The
dispersants did accomplish one significant goal for BP and the U.S. government.
They “hid” surface slicks, allowing BP to claim victory over the spill. Indeed,
the Obama administration and a team led by the Interior Department and the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration claimed that the oil had
largely disappeared by August, 2010.[xvi]
Many scientists publicly disputed this claim, including UGA marine scientist Charles
Hopkinson: “One major misconception is that
oil that has dissolved into the water is gone and therefore harmless . . . the
oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade.”[xvii]
Likewise, Ian MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University, told the
a U.S. House Energy and Commerce subcommittee in August of 2010 that the
administration’s findings were misleading, particularly with respect to
unrealistically optimistic government forecasts of the oil’s projected rate for
biodegrading.[xviii]
Dr. Joye, along with marine researchers from the University of Georgia and the
Georgia Sea Grant program, publicly challenged the government’s
overly-optimistic approximation of the oil remaining in the gulf in August,
claiming that as much as 79% of the oil remained, threatening fisheries and
marine life.[xix]
By December
of 2010, enough evidence had accumulated to support these scientists’
challenges to the government’s claims. Marine scientists found strong evidence
of BP oil on the seafloor, as reported by The
Wall Street Journal in December of 2010, and concluded that the dispersants
likely caused the oil to sink: “Layers of residue up to several centimeters
thick from what they suspect is BP oil. The material appears in spots across several
thousand square miles of seafloor…in many of those spots, they said, worms and
other marine life that craw along the sediment appear dead.”[xx]
Oil substance was continuing to wash
ashore the Louisiana coast in the spring and summer of 2011 and massive animal
deaths were reported during the same period, including dolphins, sharks,
turtles, and various fish.[xxi]
Oil found on dead dolphins, for example,
was definitely linked to the BP spill by scientists.[xxii]
In the spring of 2011, reports of began surfacing of sick fish in the Gulf, the
levels of which were alarming scientists, as noted by Richard Synder, Director
of the West Florida Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation: "It's a huge red flag…It seems abnormal, and
anything we see out of the ordinary we'll try to investigate."[xxiii]
Evidence of the
biological toll of the gulf oil spill was not restricted to marine life. People
living along the Gulf coast and working in the clean-up have fallen ill as
well. In April, the state of Louisiana had 417 reported cases of illnesses
linked to exposure to the gulf oil and Corexit.[xxiv]
Although the CDC
developed a system to track the health of cleanup workers, no similar program
was developed for the civilian population.[xxv] Data about the full scale
impact of the oil spill on human health are unlikely to be generated because
medical physicians are not trained to recognize symptoms of chemical poisonings.[xxvi]
Riki Ott, a marine toxicologist with previous experience
working with oil spill clean-up crews, describes her findings on the public
health aftermath of the Gulf oil spill:
I have been in the Gulf since May 3 and have witnessed the outbreak of a
public-health epidemic as the oil and dispersant came ashore. Every day now, former
workers, Gulf coast residents, and visitors share similar stories with me of
respiratory problems, central nervous system problems, chemical sensitivities,
or bad skin rashes after exposure to air or water in the Gulf -- predictable
illnesses from chemical exposure, all of which were avoidable given adequate
warning and protection.
Stories of illnesses persist despite assurances from four federal agencies
-- the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and
the U.S. Coast Guard -- that no levels of oil or dispersant measured in Gulf
water or air were found to be unsafe.
But government officials have no credibility in communities across the Gulf
because the official story does not match the reality of what people are seeing
and smelling. The community stories that string together across the Gulf coast
paint a picture quite different from what BP, its contractors, and our
government report.[xxvii]
A Louisiana
chemist and MacArthur Fellow, Wilma Subra, tested the blood of spill workers
and fisherman working with the Gulf cleanup and found volatile solvents and
high levels of benzene, at levels up to 36 times that of the general population.[xxviii]
The contamination of gulf seafood is a public safety risk not limited to
gulf residents since the seafood is exported to other states. The
government conspired to hide the scope of the disaster by engaging in token
sampling and testing of seafood contamination. Taste and smell testing were initially the only means used to evaluate
petroleum concentrations in seafood. For months, the government required no test
for Corexit in the seafood. Lax testing for safety was designed to guarantee
the seafood industry against collapse, even when public health was at issue. Hugh Kaufman,
a whistleblower and senior policy analyst at the EPA, went on the record
condoning the laxity and insufficient sampling of seafood:
They
say it perfectly clear: the purpose of the test they developed is to make the
public confident, not whether the seafood was safe or not…They selected the one
compound that doesn’t bio-accumulate, as opposed to testing for the toxic
ingredients that have a low safety threshold and do build up in tissue. They
are not looking for those…They want to be able to tell the public the seafood
is safe. But if you are going to test seafood to see if it’s safe or not, you
want to test for the ingredients of Corexit that have a low safety threshold
and do bio-accumulate in tissue….However, if you want the public to think
everything is fine, then you do what they said in their press release they are
doing, which is to look for an ingredient with a high safety threshold that
doesn’t build up in tissue….They told you they are doing a cover up, how they
are doing the cover up, and notwithstanding that, they still have some positive
results for chemicals."[xxix]
Kaufman was not alone in his concerns. Chemist Bob Naman of
Analytical Testing Lab took issue with the government’s 500 ppm threshold for
safety. Naman argued that this figure is probably 100 times too high for
safety, pointing out that the EPA prohibits levels over 15 ppm in drainage
water from sites containing salvaged cars.[xxx]
The evidence
discussed so far suggests a deliberate cover-up of the scope of the disaster
and the extent of contamination. BP’s control over funding of research on the
spill allowed alternative data and interpretations to be suppressed, as
documented by a Linda Hooper-Bui, a professor of entomology at Louisiana State
University.[xxxi] Whistleblowers
have spoken out about outright censorship of research data by federal
authorities. For instance, University of South Florida and University of
Southern Mississippi oceanographers were reportedly told by the NOAA and Coast
Guard officials to stop “speculating” when they reported on underwater oil
plumes in the Gulf of Mexico containing BP oil. University of South Florida
chemical oceanographer, David Hollander, publicly challenged official
assertions that oil was gone: "What we learned completely changes the idea
of what an oil spill is. It has gone from a two-dimensional disaster to a
three-dimensional catastrophe."[xxxii]
Estimates from the true scope of the contamination ranged from 44,000 square
miles of ocean to 80,000.[xxxiii]
In April of
2011, The Guardian published emails
obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act documenting how BP officials
sought to control scientists and their research on the oil spill.[xxxiv]
Furthermore, the emails revealed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) confronted the White House on August 4 2010 and demanded
it issue a correction to its claim that the “vast majority” of oil was gone
from the gulf. Documents also indicated that Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, and
Bob Perciasepe, deputy director, had objected to the White House estimates.
Together, these documents demonstrate that the White House acted deliberately
to deceive the public about the effectiveness of the clean-up and suppressed
agency dissent over the cover-up.[xxxv]
Punitive
damages were at issue in the research over the scope of the spill’s effects. BP
would be required to pay for the oil spilled and the marine animals killed. BP
was also responsible for some compensation to the fisherman whose livelihoods
had been disrupted. However, all allegations had to be proven and BP and the
government conspired to hide the scope of the disaster in a variety of ways.
The use of Corexit to “hide” the oil was perhaps the most extreme example of
duplicity in this regard. Second, BP allegedly sought out and destroyed dead
marine animals including dolphins in whales without tallying the death toll.[xxxvi]
Third, the U.S. Presidential Commission 2011 report on the Gulf of Mexico oil
spill “reduces the likelihood that BP PLC will be found guilty of gross
negligence, legal experts and industry analysts said.”[xxxvii]
A decision
against a ruling of gross negligence would be difficult to understand given
BP’s safety record. Even the mainstream press has acknowledged openly that BP’s
corporate culture has promoted deal-making over safety[xxxviii]
Government regulators were understaffed and many were corrupted by a revolving
door, close ties and gifts even when regulators knew BP relied on cheaper wells
with fewer safety mechanisms.[xxxix] BP’s Prudhoe Bay, the largest oil field in N.
America, has for years been critiqued for its aging infrastructure, its lengthy
backlogs of needed maintenance work, numerous worker safety risks, and poor
work conditions.[xl] In
the Gulf of Mexico, BP relied on a well design described as “risky” by
Congressional investigations in over one third of its deepwater wells and,
additionally, failed to use a blow-out preventer.[xli]
Over a year after the start of the Gulf oil disaster, oil
still washes up on the shores of Louisiana shores and clogs marshes. A year
after the tragedy, BP and other oil companies are pushing to open more areas
off the East and West coasts and Alaska to expand drilling while reducing
safety reviews.[xlii] A year after the tragedy “Offshore oil companies still
shielded by liability limits” reports ProPublica.[xliii] Furthermore, no investigation has occurred of the stock sell
off by BP executives. Indeed, Tony Hayward, CEO of BP at the time of the
disaster, sold off a full one third of his stock before the disaster.[xliv] BP had reportedly had trouble with its Deepwater Horizon
cite prior to the explosion in April.
Large oil slicks of 6 miles in length continue to appear in
the Gulf at the time this chapter has been written.[xlv] In July of 2011 BP argued that victims of last year's Gulf oil spill should
be denied any future claims on losses because the areas affected by the spill
oil had recovered and the economy was improving.[xlvi]
[i] Robert Lee Hotz “Oil Still in Gulf Study
Estimates,” The Wall Street Journal
(2010, August 17): A5.
[ii] Siobhan Hughes and Robert Lee Hotz
“Oil-Cleanup Estimates Draw New Fire,” The
Wall Street Journal (2010, August 8): p. A3.
[iii] Dahr Jamail “BP anniversary: Toxicity, Suffering and Death,” Al Jazeera (2011,
April 19): http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/20114161153981347.html and Dahr,
Jamail “Is the Gulf of Mexico Safe? Experts, Fishermen, and Residents Disagree
with Federal Agencies’ Claims that the Gulf and its Seafood Are Safe,” Al Jazeera (2010, November 5): http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2010/11/201011465847225269.html.
[iv] Wendy
Sheppard “BP’s Bad
Break: How Toxic is Corexit? Mother Jones
(2010, September/October): http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/09/bp-ocean-dispersant-corexit.
[v] Kate Spinner “Did BP's oil-dissolving chemical make the spill worse?” Herald Tribune (2011, May 30): http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110530/ARTICLE/110539976/-1/news?p=all&tc=pgall&tc=ar.
[vi] Sheppard “BP’s Bad Break: How Toxic is Corexit?” http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/09/bp-ocean-dispersant-corexit.
[vii] “Swimming in Chemicals: An Excerpt from
'Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products,” PBS (2008, March
21): http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/412/Exposed-Toxic-Chemistry.html.
[viii] Cited
in Tom Philpott “Chemical Dispersants Being Used in
Gulf Clean-Up Are Potentially Toxic,”
Grist (2010, May 6): http://www.grist.org/article/2010-05-06-use-of-toxic-chemical-dispersants-to-fight-the-oil-spill-a-murky.
[ix] Philpott “Chemical Dispersants Being,”
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-05-06-use-of-toxic-chemical-dispersants-to-fight-the-oil-spill-a-murky.
[x] Jamail “Is the Gulf of Mexico Safe,”
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2010/11/201011465847225269.html.
[xi] Susan Shaw “Swimming Through the Spill,” The New York Times (2010, May 30):
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30shaw.html.
[xii] Democracy Now “EPA Whistleblower Accuses Agency of Covering Up Effects
of Dispersant in BP Oil Spill Cleanup [with Hugh Kaufman],” Democracy Now (2010, July 20): http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/20/epa_whistleblower_accuses_agency_of_covering and Democracy
Now “Environmental Activist Jerry Cope on The
Crime of the Century: What BP and US Government Don’t Want You to Know" Democracy Now (2010, August 4): http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/4/environmental_activist_jerry_cope_on_the.
[xiii] See Jessica Taloney “News Five
Investigates: Oil Hiding in the Sand,” WKRG
(2010, July 29):
http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/article/news-five-investigates-testing-the-water-round-2/909282/Aug-02-2010_9-38-pm/
and Jessica Taloney “News 5 Investigates: Testing the Water,” WKRG (2010, July 16): http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/article/news-5-investigates-testing-the-water/906545/Jul-18-2010_7-40-pm.
[xiv] Cited in Spinner “Did BP's oil-dissolving,” http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110530/ARTICLE/110539976/-1/news?p=all&tc=pgall&tc=ar.
[xv] Cited in Spinner “Did BP's oil-dissolving,” http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110530/ARTICLE/110539976/-1/news?p=all&tc=pgall&tc=ar.
[xvi] Hughes Hotz “Oil-Cleanup Estimates
Draw New Fire,” p. A3.
[xvii] Robert Lee Hotz “Oil Still in Gulf Study
Estimates,” The Wall Street Journal
(2010, August 17): A5.
[xviii] Hughes and Hotz “Oil-Cleanup,” A3.
[xix] Hughes and Hotz “Oil-Cleanup,” A3.
[xx] Jeffrey Ball “Strong Evidence Emerges
of BP Oil on Seafloor,” The Wall Street
Journal (2010, December 9): A20.
[xxi] Washington’s Blog “Photos Show Oil at
BP’s Deepwater Horizon Gulf Spill Site,” Naked
Capitalism (2011, August 21): http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/guest-post-photos-show-oil-at-bps-deepwater-horizon-gulf-spill-site.html
and Leigh Coleman “Government Tightens Lid on Dolphin Death Probe,” Reuters (2011, March 25): http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/25/us-dolphins-gulf-idUSTRE72O3JO20110325.
[xxii] Leigh Coleman “Oil On Dead Dolphins In Gulf Linked To BP Spill,
Scientists Say,” Reuters (2011, April
7): http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/07/us-oilspill-dolphins-idUSTRE7367OP20110407.
[xxiii] Kimberly Blair “Sick
fish in Gulf are Alarming Scientists: Unusual Number a 'Huge Red Flag' to Scientists,
Fishermen,” Pensacola
News Journal (2011, May 7): http://www.pnj.com/article/20110508/NEWS01/105080328/Sick-fish-Gulf-alarming-scientists?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE.
[xxiv] Agence France Presse “Mystery Illness
Plague Louisiana Oil Spill Crews: The State of Louisiana Has Reported 415 Cases
of Health Problems Linked to the Spill,” Alternet
(2011, April 17): http://www.alternet.org/environment/150637/mystery_illnesses_plague_louisiana_oil_spill_crews/.
[xxv] Stephen Bradberry “A Developing Health
Crisis Across the Gulf Coast,” Common
Dreams (2011, April 20): http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/20-10.
[xxvi] Riki Ott “Seafood Safety and Politics Don’t Mix,” The Huffington Press (2010, August 11): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riki-ott/seafood-safety-and-politi_b_678813.html.
[xxvii] Ott “Seafood Safety,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riki-ott/seafood-safety-and-politi_b_678813.html.
[xxviii] Presse “Mystery Illness,” http://www.alternet.org/environment/150637/mystery_illnesses_plague_louisiana_oil_spill_crews/.
[xxix] Cited in Jamail “Is the Gulf of Mexico
Safe?” http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2010/11/201011465847225269.html.
[xxx] Cited in Jamail “Is the Gulf of Mexico
Safe?” http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2010/11/201011465847225269.html.
[xxxi] Linda Hooper-Bui “A Gulf Science Blackout,” The New York Times (2010, August 24): http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/opinion/25hooper-Bui.html?_r=1&th&emc=th.
[xxxii] Cited in Stephen Lendman “America’s Gulf: A Toxic Crime Scene,” OpEdNews.Com (2010, August 11): http://www.opednews.com/articles/America-s-Gulf-A-Toxic-Cr-by-Stephen-Lendman-100811-796.html.
[xxxiii] Lendman “America’s Gulf: A Toxic Crime Scene,” http://www.opednews.com/articles/America-s-Gulf-A-Toxic-Cr-by-Stephen-Lendman-100811-796.html.
[xxxiv] Suzanne Goldenberg “Emails
expose BP's attempts to control research into impact of Gulf oil spill,” The Guardian (2011, April 15): http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/15/bp-control-science-gulf-oil-spill.
[xxxv] See also Tom Dickinson “The Spill, The Scandal and the
President,” The Rolling Stone (2010,
June 8):
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-spill-the-scandal-and-the-president-20100608.
[xxxvi] Jeff Goodell “The Poisoning. It's the Biggest Environmental Disaster in American History — and BP is Making it Worse,” The Rolling Stone (2010, July 21): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-poisoning-20100721.
[xxxvii] Guy Chazan “Oil spill Report Could Limit BP Payout,” The Wall Street Journal (2011, January
7): B3.
[xxxviii] Guy Chazan “BP’s Safety Drive Faces Rough
Road,” The Wall Street Journal (2011,
February 1): A1, A11.
[xxxix] Stephen Power “Off-Shore Oil Regulators Are Ordered to Cut
Their Oft-Deep Industry Ties,” The Wall
Street Journal (2010, September 1): A4.
[xl] Chazan “BP’s Safety Drive Faces
Rough Road,” A1, A11.
[xli] Russell Gold and Tom McGinty (2010,
June 19-20). “BP Relied on Cheaper Wells,” The
Wall Street Journal (2010, June 19-20): A1, A5.
[xlii] Ed Markey “One Year After the BP Oil Spill, Dangers Remain,” Grist (2011, April 20): http://www.grist.org/oil/2011-04-20-one-year-after-the-bp-oil-spill-drilling-is-no-safer.
[xliii] Marian Wang “A Year After Gulf Tragedy, Offshore Oil Companies Still Shielded by
Liability Limits,” ProPublica (2011,
April 19): http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/a-year-after-gulf-tragedy-offshore-oil-companies-still-shielded-by-liabilit.
[xliv] Jon Swaine and Robert Winnett “BP Chief BP chief Tony Hayward Sold Shares Weeks Before Oil Spill,” The Telegraph (2010, June 5): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7804922/BP-chief-Tony-Hayward-sold-shares-weeks-before-oil-spill.html.
[xlv] “Louisiana: Coast Guard Investigates Origin of Oil Slick in Gulf of Mexico,” The New York Times (2011, June 8): http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/us/09brfs-COASTGUARDIN_BRF.html?_r=1.
[xlvi] “BP Pressing to Head Off Future Claims
From Oil Spill," The Arizona
Republic (2011, July 9): 2.
Good post! Thanks for sharing this information I appreciate it. God bless!
ReplyDeleteoil spill clean up ma
Great and useful article. Creating content regularly is very tough. Your points are motivated me to move on.
ReplyDeleteiphongthuynet
ReplyDeleteiphongthuynet
iphongthuynet
iphongthuynet
iphongthuynet
iphongthuynet
iphongthuynet
iphongthuynet
iphongthuynet
Thanks for this information, I think it will come in handy in the future.
ReplyDelete