U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-04-2013, 08:32 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,805 posts, read 17,577,246 times
Reputation: 9435

Advertisements

Kaptain Karl wrote:(You do know chorine is a toxin, right? Your municipal water is treated with chlorine to kill viruses, bacteria, etc. Chlorine is not good for you, by the way.)

Chlorine AND flouride are two nasty chemicals to put into ones body, that I stopped consuming more than 20 years ago, when I started drinking filtered water. Nonetheless I suspect they are rather benign compared to the substances used in fracking. Don't really give a damn about the left/right political bullsh*t, but I am concerned about my well being.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2013, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Colorado
90 posts, read 294,945 times
Reputation: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idunn View Post
"A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report found traces of methane, ethane and phenol in a monitoring well in rural Pavillion, Wyo., where residents say fracking has contaminated their drinking water." [1]
Oh, good grief! Like I previously posted, independent studies or peer-reviewed studies constitute "evidence". Not a biased government sourced "article".

More full disclosure: I don't trust our government. I REALLY don't trust the EPA, which is headed by more wacko Greenies today than ever. The EPA has a well-known agenda: Destroy Big Oil. Sheesh!

I'm calling you, "Idunno" from now on.....

Quote:
Filtering one's water, from whatever source (nor excluding those municipal) is a good idea.
Hey! Agreement.

Quote:
As to sources pertaining to fracking, one will find I've often supplied references to substantiate that...
No. You provided a series of cheap-headline articles and *pretended* they were sources. Somehow I knew you were not going to be intellectually honest.

Quote:
<snip> Clearly no one source should be considered alone. For that matter disingenuous to dismiss the validity of any particular instance merely because of the credentials of any one particular reference referring to it.
You surely use a lot of words to write, "I don't have the sources. I'm just making wild assertions."

Quote:
To answer the first question of water table contamination—in part—look to Pavillion, Wyoming. It should be considered an example and indicator.
It's no different than your other Chicken Little claims. I asked you for evidence to back-up YOUR claims. If you can't do it, just say so.

Quote:
There are other cases elsewhere ...
Actually there are ZERO cases. You're the one making the claims. The onus is on you to support them.

Quote:
If raising specious arguments is often the favored provence of scoundrels and their ilk. The serious will look beyond this, to the facts as they can best find and decipher them, and decide for themselves.
You should read your own words.

Quote:
As for the remainder, I've already in instances provided some substantiation previously ...
I read every post of yours in this nutty thread. You never provided anything of substance.

Quote:
<snip> ... go look it up yourself.
You made the claims. YOU can't back them up. So your retort is to tell ME to do YOUR homework??? No thanks. I already know more about this than you because I've actually looked at real data ... not headlines.

Thanks for playing.

[Pre-emptive Note] Watch this, fellow forum members. Idunno will now proceed to post *pages* of tap-dancing, employing the "He-who-post-the-most-wins" tactic. I don't play that game. (I actually have a business to run.) So I'll mostly post brief requests for Idunno to supply some actual evidence.



Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
Chlorine AND flouride are two nasty chemicals to put into ones body, that I stopped consuming more than 20 years ago, when I started drinking filtered water.
Same here.

Quote:
Nonetheless I suspect they are rather benign compared to the substances used in fracking. Don't really give a damn about the left/right political bullsh*t, but I am concerned about my well being.
Your suspicions are your prerogative. Thank you for your candor that they are your suspicions and not ... evidence.

- KK
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2013, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Bend, OR
3,296 posts, read 8,873,518 times
Reputation: 3329
Interesting article in the Denver post today about fracking chemicals and the O&G industry's attempt to silence doctors about it. Colorado docs chafe at secrecy oath needed for access to chemical list - The Denver Post
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2013, 09:00 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 6,369,472 times
Reputation: 2635
Wink ABQ as (maybe) Colorado's water

"ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — Environmentalists call it the largest threat to a city's drinking water supply in history, as much as 24 million gallons of jet fuel - or twice the size of the Exxon Valdez oil spill - seeping into an underground aquifer and steadily toward this drought-stricken city's largest and most pristine water wells." [1]


If not directly related to fracking in Colorado, the issue of Albuquerque's water supply is still relevant.

It turns out that the US Air Force at Kirtland AFB, being adjacent to Albuquerque, has managed over the decades to dump a huge quantity of jet fuel into the groundwater. Nor is this an isolated incident, with the Air Force elsewhere as guilty—only not to this degree.

What might concern any Coloradoan, or any other US citizen, is the government's lackadaisical response. This spill in ABQ, discovered in 1999, is threatening ABQ's prime water wells. So, by extension, one might wonder how proactive they might be in protecting Colorado's water supply with fracking. Or prompt, if need be, in trying to remediate any "accidental" resultant pollution.

No idea if entirely accurate, but check out what D McCoy has to say about the ABQ issue in post #29.

1) 'Kirtland Air Force Base Jet Fuel Spill Threatens Albuquerque Water Supply,' Huffington Post
Kirtland Air Force Base Jet Fuel Spill Threatens Albuquerque Water Supply

2) 'Is there really a Kirtland AFB oil/water contamination issue?,' City-Data
Is there really a Kirtland AFB oil/water contamination issue?
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2013, 10:15 PM
Status: "We're all broken, that's how the light gets in." (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: Wonderland
55,811 posts, read 44,201,188 times
Reputation: 78944
My husband has worked in oil and gas for thirty plus years. He is now what is known as a "company man" - he's responsible for setting up a "location" (a well that needs to be "fracked"), managing the entire process, and then returning the area to it's original - and undamaged - condition.

We live in an area (northeast Texas) which has been "fracked" for decades. Absolutely zero health issues, water issues, etc.

My husband started some new work up in West Virginia a couple of years ago. It's been interesting. For starters, some of the locals were up in arms from the start - gas vs coal, that sort of thing. Then the environmentalists came in protesting, stirring up fears, etc. Due to all this, my husband made himself available to schools and groups for joint discussions, Q and A sessions, etc. These were very well attended. He was able to answer many, many questions thoroughly - and apparently effectively because things started settling down and they began working on these wells in earnest.

Then the complaints about water contamination started coming in. Not many, but a few. Of course, state and federal agencies jumped all over that - as well as environmentalist groups. Good times, good times! Time to run the evil frackers out of town on a rail!

Here's the deal though - not one - not ONE - case of so called water contamination was legitimate. Without exception, the complaints were found to have absolutely no merit or credibility.

What many people don't seem to realize is just how stringently regulated these operations are. The margins of error are miniscule, and the fines and penalties for unsafe or unlawful operations are HUGE. Not only that, the people working on these locations usually live in the area (in my husband's case he lives there for two weeks out of each month and of course we live in Texas, right on top of an area that's fracked to the hilt) and do you think THEY want to expose themselves or their families to any dangers, contaminated water, caustic chemicals, etc.?

If anyone has any questions that they REALLY want answered by a professional who works in this field, with over thirty years of experience, who has worked in fracking throughout the evolvement of the industry, I will be more than happy to pass those questions along to him and get you some real, and honest, answers directly "from the field."
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2013, 07:06 AM
 
Location: OKLAHOMA
1,789 posts, read 3,863,252 times
Reputation: 998
I am all for fracking except recently we have been experiencing earthquakes. The scientist in this area are saying it is related to fracking. I sure hope they are wrong. At first they said not more than say a 2. earthquake but the last few in the 4.8 and so they were located right at the fracking well. Not good!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2013, 08:02 AM
Status: "We're all broken, that's how the light gets in." (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: Wonderland
55,811 posts, read 44,201,188 times
Reputation: 78944
Quote:
Originally Posted by debbie at bouontiful View Post
I am all for fracking except recently we have been experiencing earthquakes. The scientist in this area are saying it is related to fracking. I sure hope they are wrong. At first they said not more than say a 2. earthquake but the last few in the 4.8 and so they were located right at the fracking well. Not good!
How, errrrr, "unsettling!"

Not sure where you live but you can go to the government site on earthquakes and can read about all the earthquakes recorded in your region. My bet is that you will find a list of earthquakes that precede the fracking.

Here's the site:
Earthquake Hazards Program

And here is the information from the site on the history of earthquakes in Oklahoma. As you can see, there have been numerous earthquakes in your state stretching back far before any fracking was going on:
Oklahoma
Quote:
Oklahoma
Earthquake History

The series of great earthquakes in the New Madrid, Missouri, region in 1811 - 1812, and a strong earthquake centered in Arkansas (October 22, 1881) were probably felt in the area that is now Oklahoma.

The first earthquake known to have centered in the State occurred in September 1918. A series of shocks at El Reno produced only minor effects; the strongest was intensity V on September 10. Objects were thrown from shelves. Other shocks occurred on the next day. On December 27, 1929, another tremor centered in the same area was felt in portions of central and western Oklahoma. Some plaster cracked and at least one chimney fell (intensity VI) at El Reno. In addition, clocks stopped, objects moved, and some reports indicated the walls and floors seemed to sway. In several cities, people rushed from their homes in alarm. The total felt area included about 20,000 square kilometers.

The magnitude 5.5 April 9, 1952, earthquake centered near El Reno affected most of Oklahoma and parts of Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas. Damage from the 10:30 a.m. CST earthquake was not extensive, but many people in the epicentral area were alarmed, some to near panic. Portions of chimneys fell in El Reno and Ponca City (intensity VII). Bricks loosened from a building wall and tile facing of commercial buildings bulged at Oklahoma City. Also, plate glass windows were shattered in the business district of El Reno. The total damage amounted to several thousand dollars. Aftershocks were felt on April 11, 15, and 16, July 16, and August 14; an earthquake that was felt (IV) at Holdenville and Wewoka on October 7 apparently was unrelated to the April 9th event. Homes and buildings shook and some persons were awakened (V) at El Reno from the April 16th shock, which occurred 5 minutes after midnight. Felt reports were also received from Kingfisher, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Union City.

Minor damage to a building foundation and plaster (VI) at Concho resulted from two March 17, 1953, earthquakes about an hour apart. The felt area included Calumet, Edmond, El Reno, Minco, Okarche, Peidmont, and Union City.

On February 16, 1956, a shock at Edmond broke windows and cracked plaster (VI). It was also felt strongly at Guthrie, Oklahoma City, and Pawnee. Southeastern Oklahoma was disturbed by an earthquake on April 2, 1956, that produced thundering, rattling, and bumping noises that were heard by many citizens. Buildings shook and objects fell at Antlers, and many persons were alarmed (V). Minor effects were reported from other nearby towns. On October 30, 1956, an area of about 9,500 square kilometers in northeastern Oklahoma was shaken. The maximum intensity of VII was reported west of Catoosa, where a slippage of the formation caused an oil well to be shut down. Minor damage occurred at Beggs and Tulsa; and isolated felt report was received from Electra, Texas.

A broad area (approximately 31,000 square kilometers) of southwestern Oklahoma and the adjacent portion of Texas was affected by an early morning shock on June 17, 1959. Slight damage, consisting of cracks in plaster, pavement, and a house foundation (VI), occurred at Cache, Duncan, and Lawton. Houses were shaken, buildings swayed, and many persons were alarmed. A smaller earthquake on June 15 was felt by many at Ada and nearby places. Dishes were reported broken (V) and a trembling motion was observed.

On January 10, 1961, a mild shock was felt in Latimer and Pittsburgh Counties in southeastern Oklahoma. Thunderous earth sounds were heard in many places (V); no damage was reported. Another earthquake on April 27, 1961, awakened many (V) at Antlers, Coalgate, Hartshorne, Leflore, McCurtain, Panola, Poteau, Talihina, and Wilburton. Once again, thunderous, deep rumbling earth sounds were heard throughout the area.

An October 14, 1968, earthquake caused minor damage at Durant. Walls cracked, and glass in two structures broke (VI). The press reported that a 5 foot tall advertising stand fell over, and canned goods fell from a rack in a supermarket. Slight foreshocks were felt at Durant on October 10 and 11. Intensity IV effects from the October 14 shock were also noted at Caddo.

A magnitude 4.6 earthquake caused some cracked plaster (V) at Wewoka on May 2, 1969. Intensity V effects were reported at several other towns in the region. The total felt area included approximately 33,700 square kilometers in eastern Oklahoma.

Abridged from Earthquake Information Bulletin, Volume 8, Number 2, March - April 1976, by Carl A. von Hake.
Oklahoma

All of those quakes occurred prior to any fracking in Oklahoma. As you can see, several of the quakes listed above are in the same area as the recent quakes. So there is indeed a history of SIGNIFICANT quake/seismic activity in OK predating fracking.

We've had a recent series of small earthquakes in northeast Texas. Of course, scientists and pseudo scientists were immediately featured on the news talking about how fracking was causing these quakes. The newspapers were filled with letters to the editor making the same claim. But this claim was quickly debunked by facts. The fact is, we live on a faultline and there is a history going several hundred years back of clusters of small quakes every forty years or so - long before the fracking of this area started.

My husband felt one of our recent quakes. I missed it totally, however. Dang it!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2013, 09:22 AM
 
Location: OKLAHOMA
1,789 posts, read 3,863,252 times
Reputation: 998
Hey I am for fracking but we here in (Eastern)OK do not get earthquakes. I use to live in Southern California so I know lots and lots about earthquakes. All the reports said earthquakes from fracking would be under a 2.8 which is fine with me. We have had many at that since the fracking started and I could care less. Recently, in the last few years they have been up in the 4 and close to 5 on the scale and I figured it was just earthquakes that had nothing to do with fracking. I have a fracking well with in a mile of me and have sold water to them so the money was good. Well,, check out recent news and one of the earthquakes about 2 miles from me which was close to a 4 center was in that well. I am not convince earthquakes at the larger number is from fracking but for the first time I am taking a look at them. About a year ago we had several close to 5 on the scale and that is when all the scientist started running data on the wells. Like I said I am for fracking if the earthquakes stay under 3 I'll be fine.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2013, 10:05 AM
Status: "We're all broken, that's how the light gets in." (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: Wonderland
55,811 posts, read 44,201,188 times
Reputation: 78944
Quote:
Originally Posted by debbie at bouontiful View Post
Hey I am for fracking but we here in (Eastern)OK do not get earthquakes. I use to live in Southern California so I know lots and lots about earthquakes. All the reports said earthquakes from fracking would be under a 2.8 which is fine with me. We have had many at that since the fracking started and I could care less. Recently, in the last few years they have been up in the 4 and close to 5 on the scale and I figured it was just earthquakes that had nothing to do with fracking. I have a fracking well with in a mile of me and have sold water to them so the money was good. Well,, check out recent news and one of the earthquakes about 2 miles from me which was close to a 4 center was in that well. I am not convince earthquakes at the larger number is from fracking but for the first time I am taking a look at them. About a year ago we had several close to 5 on the scale and that is when all the scientist started running data on the wells. Like I said I am for fracking if the earthquakes stay under 3 I'll be fine.
I'm just saying that ALL of Oklahoma has a history of clusters of earthquakes, some quite significant and causing damage to structures, which predates fracking. That's the information I got from the USGS website to which I gave the link in my last post - but here it is again:

Quote:
Oklahoma
Earthquake History

The series of great earthquakes in the New Madrid, Missouri, region in 1811 - 1812, and a strong earthquake centered in Arkansas (October 22, 1881) were probably felt in the area that is now Oklahoma.

The first earthquake known to have centered in the State occurred in September 1918. A series of shocks at El Reno produced only minor effects; the strongest was intensity V on September 10. Objects were thrown from shelves. Other shocks occurred on the next day. On December 27, 1929, another tremor centered in the same area was felt in portions of central and western Oklahoma. Some plaster cracked and at least one chimney fell (intensity VI) at El Reno. In addition, clocks stopped, objects moved, and some reports indicated the walls and floors seemed to sway. In several cities, people rushed from their homes in alarm. The total felt area included about 20,000 square kilometers.

The magnitude 5.5 April 9, 1952, earthquake centered near El Reno affected most of Oklahoma and parts of Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas. Damage from the 10:30 a.m. CST earthquake was not extensive, but many people in the epicentral area were alarmed, some to near panic. Portions of chimneys fell in El Reno and Ponca City (intensity VII). Bricks loosened from a building wall and tile facing of commercial buildings bulged at Oklahoma City. Also, plate glass windows were shattered in the business district of El Reno. The total damage amounted to several thousand dollars. Aftershocks were felt on April 11, 15, and 16, July 16, and August 14; an earthquake that was felt (IV) at Holdenville and Wewoka on October 7 apparently was unrelated to the April 9th event. Homes and buildings shook and some persons were awakened (V) at El Reno from the April 16th shock, which occurred 5 minutes after midnight. Felt reports were also received from Kingfisher, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Union City.

Minor damage to a building foundation and plaster (VI) at Concho resulted from two March 17, 1953, earthquakes about an hour apart. The felt area included Calumet, Edmond, El Reno, Minco, Okarche, Peidmont, and Union City.

On February 16, 1956, a shock at Edmond broke windows and cracked plaster (VI). It was also felt strongly at Guthrie, Oklahoma City, and Pawnee. Southeastern Oklahoma was disturbed by an earthquake on April 2, 1956, that produced thundering, rattling, and bumping noises that were heard by many citizens. Buildings shook and objects fell at Antlers, and many persons were alarmed (V). Minor effects were reported from other nearby towns. On October 30, 1956, an area of about 9,500 square kilometers in northeastern Oklahoma was shaken. The maximum intensity of VII was reported west of Catoosa, where a slippage of the formation caused an oil well to be shut down. Minor damage occurred at Beggs and Tulsa; and isolated felt report was received from Electra, Texas.

A broad area (approximately 31,000 square kilometers) of southwestern Oklahoma and the adjacent portion of Texas was affected by an early morning shock on June 17, 1959. Slight damage, consisting of cracks in plaster, pavement, and a house foundation (VI), occurred at Cache, Duncan, and Lawton. Houses were shaken, buildings swayed, and many persons were alarmed. A smaller earthquake on June 15 was felt by many at Ada and nearby places. Dishes were reported broken (V) and a trembling motion was observed.

On January 10, 1961, a mild shock was felt in Latimer and Pittsburgh Counties in southeastern Oklahoma. Thunderous earth sounds were heard in many places (V); no damage was reported. Another earthquake on April 27, 1961, awakened many (V) at Antlers, Coalgate, Hartshorne, Leflore, McCurtain, Panola, Poteau, Talihina, and Wilburton. Once again, thunderous, deep rumbling earth sounds were heard throughout the area.

An October 14, 1968, earthquake caused minor damage at Durant. Walls cracked, and glass in two structures broke (VI). The press reported that a 5 foot tall advertising stand fell over, and canned goods fell from a rack in a supermarket. Slight foreshocks were felt at Durant on October 10 and 11. Intensity IV effects from the October 14 shock were also noted at Caddo.

A magnitude 4.6 earthquake caused some cracked plaster (V) at Wewoka on May 2, 1969. Intensity V effects were reported at several other towns in the region. The total felt area included approximately 33,700 square kilometers in eastern Oklahoma.
Oklahoma

The towns and cities that I bolded are all in EASTERN Oklahoma.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2013, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Bend, OR
3,296 posts, read 8,873,518 times
Reputation: 3329
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon View Post
My husband has worked in oil and gas for thirty plus years. He is now what is known as a "company man" - he's responsible for setting up a "location" (a well that needs to be "fracked"), managing the entire process, and then returning the area to it's original - and undamaged - condition.

We live in an area (northeast Texas) which has been "fracked" for decades. Absolutely zero health issues, water issues, etc.

My husband started some new work up in West Virginia a couple of years ago. It's been interesting. For starters, some of the locals were up in arms from the start - gas vs coal, that sort of thing. Then the environmentalists came in protesting, stirring up fears, etc. Due to all this, my husband made himself available to schools and groups for joint discussions, Q and A sessions, etc. These were very well attended. He was able to answer many, many questions thoroughly - and apparently effectively because things started settling down and they began working on these wells in earnest.

Then the complaints about water contamination started coming in. Not many, but a few. Of course, state and federal agencies jumped all over that - as well as environmentalist groups. Good times, good times! Time to run the evil frackers out of town on a rail!

Here's the deal though - not one - not ONE - case of so called water contamination was legitimate. Without exception, the complaints were found to have absolutely no merit or credibility.

What many people don't seem to realize is just how stringently regulated these operations are. The margins of error are miniscule, and the fines and penalties for unsafe or unlawful operations are HUGE. Not only that, the people working on these locations usually live in the area (in my husband's case he lives there for two weeks out of each month and of course we live in Texas, right on top of an area that's fracked to the hilt) and do you think THEY want to expose themselves or their families to any dangers, contaminated water, caustic chemicals, etc.?

If anyone has any questions that they REALLY want answered by a professional who works in this field, with over thirty years of experience, who has worked in fracking throughout the evolvement of the industry, I will be more than happy to pass those questions along to him and get you some real, and honest, answers directly "from the field."
My Uncle is a senior petroleum engineer for one of the largest oil companies in the nation. He has been overseeing fracking operations all over the world. With that being said, I've had some very heated "debates" with him regarding fracking, especially when it comes to the chemicals they are injecting into the ground. I find that these companies are hiding behind their proprietary formula bs, instead of disclosing the actual chemicals they are injecting in the ground, at risk of public safety, much like our cosmetics industry is doing.

I will also say that not all companies are regulated the way his and probably your husband's are. There are many small companies out there that simply don't have the money or manpower to oversee all aspects of operations. In addition, fracking operations do not have to be regulated by many of the agencies and laws that other resource extractions are subject to. Here, specifically, are the regulations they are not required to follow:

Full source info: Fracking - SourceWatch
As of 2012, fracking is exempt from seven major federal regulations:[8]

The Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, due to the "Halliburton loophole" pushed through by former Vice-President/former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney, exempting corporations from revealing the chemicals used in fracking fluid;
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which exempts fracking from federal regulations pertaining to hazardous waste;
the Superfund law, which requires that polluters remediate for carcinogens like benzene released into the environment, except if they come from oil or gas;
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act;
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;
the National Environmental Policy Act; and
the Toxic Release Inventory under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.

As of February 2012, only four of 31 fracking states have significant drilling rules. Five states have adopted disclosure rules, although they still allow for "proprietary trade secrets."

The EPA, at the request of congress, has only begun an intensive study regarding water impacts at fracking sites, so it's premature to say that there the water issues are unrelated. I'll be interested to see what the evidence shows when the EPA study is complete.

Personally, I am very wary of an industry that doesn't have to follow government regulation, especially in regards to environmental regulation. What do they have to hide?
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top