Posts Tagged ‘oil’

h1

Money and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

August 11, 2014

In 2007, the Islamic State of Iraq was seen as “the richest of the insurgency groups” in Iraq with $1 billion to 1.5 billion “collected in revenue by the group through foreign donations, enforced taxation and confiscation of the property and funds of Iraqis.” But the U.S. surge and ISI missteps significantly damaged the jihadist group’s ability to raise funds.

Seven years and three names later, ISIS amassed a $2 billion comeback and took control of large swathes of territory in northern Iraq including Mosul and 35 percent of Syria.

ISIS’s financial recovery has been marked by a slight shift away from reliance on local extortion networks (although those are still in effect), improved organizational and financial management by ISIS leader and self-proclaimed caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and the departure of U.S. troops in 2011.

The most important elements of ISIS’s funding are sadaqa (voluntary donations) from Arab donors in the Gulf; sales and tolls collected on sales of oil from fields under its control; and increasingly through money made by controlling key infrastructure.

Here’s a rundown of ISIS’s main funding channels:

Sadaqa from private donors

Fundraising is aided by contemporary marketing methods

Oil

  • ISIS controls 60 percent of Syrian oil including the lucrative Omar field
  • In Iraq, ISIS controls Butmah and Ain Zalah oil fields, the refinery in Baiji, and oil and gas resources in Ajeel in northern Iraq
  • ISIS sells or collects a portion on black market sales to Turkey, Iran, and in Syria itself
  • Revenue estimates for ISIS range from $1 million to $3 million daily

Dams

  • In addition to oil, control of key infrastructure such as the dams in Mosul, Fallujah, and Tabqa present increasingly significant revenue potential for ISIS.
  • Professor Ariel Ahram notes this is already occurring at Tabqa, where ISIS is involved in selling electricity.
  • New York Times reporter Tim Arango says that possession of the Mosul dam can enable ISIS to “use it as a method of finance” through extortion schemes to continue their operations.

Other sources

  • Isis has seized arms from Iraqi depots, including U.S. weapons given to Iraqi forces, plus weapons smuggled from Turkey and Croatia
  • The collection of ransom money has sustained ISIS throughout its existence
  • Antiquities smuggling

Incidently, little is being done by the Gulf states to curtail the flow of donations to ISIS because they either want an independent Sunni state carved out of Iraq or to replace Iraq’s Shia-led government with Sunnis. Washington should designate Saudi Arabia and Qatar as state sponsors of terrorism, but it won’t because of diplomatic considerations.

Without interdicting the donations and the contraband oil, U.S. airstrikes will have limited effect on ISIS’s coffers.

This piece is also published at Terror Finance Blog.

h1

A million a day for ISIS and a grain of salt

July 20, 2014

Is a million dollars a day enough to sustain ISIS’s operations without dipping into its own reserves? Perhaps. There may be about 10,000 ISIS foot soldiers. Paying, feeding, clothing, and transporting that many men is expensive. But if each jihadist were getting a proportionate share of $100 a day, that still well exceeds the median Iraqi income of $15 a day, which probably helps with recruitment efforts.

That being said, such a rapid influx of money does not automatically translate into the ability to spend the money—either wisely or at all. Remember the movie “Brewster’s Millions” where Richard Pryor was challenged to spend $30 million in 30 days? It’s harder than it looks.

But it’s still ominous. From the Telegraph on July 11:

Iraq oil bonanza reaps $1 million a day for Islamic State

Exclusive: Islamic State strengthens grip on northern Iraq by raising millions from sale of oil through Kurdistan to Turkey and Iran

Islamic State jihadists are raising as much as $1 million a day from the sale of crude oil recovered from conquered oilfields in Iraq that is then smuggled on to Turkey and Iran.

Oil industry experts believe the group formerly known as Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Isis) is able to command $25 a barrel for crude its fighters are moving in tankers from the oil plains south of Mosul.

Middlemen based in the Kurdistan region of Iraq are able to turn a handsome profit on the supplies by selling its abroad for refining into the more valuable petroleum and diesel products.

The specialist Iraqi Oil Report said the centre of the $1million trade was the town of Tuz Khurmatu on the fringes of the Kurdish region. Traders there are buying convoys of tankers supplied by Islamic State…

The swift advance of Islamic State after last month’s conquest of Mosul gave it control over the path of the Kirkuk/Ceyhan oil pipeline, the country’s biggest, and the Baiji oil refinery, again the most important refinery in Iraq…

h1

ISIS finds taxing more durable than looting

July 13, 2014

Taking a cut from oil refineries and water works is more lucrative and enduring than demolishing infrastructure and selling the spare parts, argues Prof. Ariel Ahram in an incisive piece about Al Qaeda in Iraq from the Washington Post’s “Monkey Cage” blog (hat tip to El Grillo):

…Most researchers point particularly to the “lootability” of resources – whether they are easily seized and can be sold on the international market at a significant mark up – to explain the onset and intensity of resource wars. Control over these goods motivates people to take up arms while the revenue from selling them fund the fight. Jeremy Weinstein shows how resource “rich” rebel movements are prone to attracting opportunists and thugs, who are ill-disciplined and prone to manhandling civilians. Rebel groups with access to lootable resources are liable to splinter and metastasize, becoming more like criminal operations than political movements.

But not all resources are lootable and not all lootable resources have the same centrifugal effects on rebel behavior. As Philippe Le Billon and Eric Nicholls have shown, unlike diamonds or drugs, dams and oil rigs are better targets for extortion than physical appropriation. After all, these structures are far more valuable assembled and operational than broken down for spare parts. Moreover, dams and rigs require a cadre of experts, technicians and engineers to run effectively. And, as Mancur Olson famously pointed out, opportunities for extortion create incentives for building sustainable, long-term rule, which are distinctly different from simply predation. According to New York Times reporter Thanassis Cambanis, IS  left the staff at the Tabqa Dam unharmed and in place, allowing the facility to continue operations and even selling electricity back to the Syrian government. Similarly, oil fields under IS  control continue to pump. Indeed, IS  has shrewdly managed these resources to help ensure a steady and sustainable stream of revenue. As one IS fighter told the New York Times, while Assad’s loyalists chant “Assad or burn the country,” IS retorts “We will burn Assad and keep the country.” Beside revenue from oil and water, IS  collects a variety of commercial taxes, including on trucks and cellphone towers. It has also imposed the jizya (poll tax) on Christian communities under its control…

It sounds as though ISIS has matured beyond the traditional jihadist outlook of a spurned lover (“If I can’t have you, no one will”). It has realized that nine-tenths of the battle is in “staying power,” and that it will be far easier to govern if there is infrastructure in place to keep the economy and society operating after all the dust settles. This strategic thoughtfulness suggests, once again, that state sponsors such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar are coaching ISIS’s leaders, or that Saddam’s old flag officers are mixed in ISIS’s shura council, or both.

h1

What’s really behind the Saudi rewards program

February 16, 2014

Saudi Arabia says it will offer rewards to people within the kingdom who provide evidence about terrorist financing that leads to a conviction (hat tip to El Grillo).

It has been rumored that the maneuver is designed to reign in Saudi-backed elements among the Syrian rebels whom Saudi Arabia can no longer control.

Money Jihad suspects that the initiative, which resembles the U.S. Rewards for Justice program, is a Saudi smokescreen designed to placate Western diplomats, U.S. Treasury officials, and international financial watchdog FATF.

Unfortunately, this wouldn’t be the first instance of Saudi deception about a counter-terror finance initiative.

In 2008, Saudi Arabia announced that its central bank, SAMA, would review charitable contributions from Saudi Arabia overseas (which are rife with donations to terrorist causes), but meaningful oversight has never occurred.  Saudi public statements about the SAMA program have been documented to be false.

In 2010, Saudi Arabia’s ulema council issued a ruling against terrorism, but the very same ruling defended zakat, which has often been used by wealthy Saudis to finance terrorist causes.  Saudi pronouncements against terrorism have often focused on protecting its own oil and gas infrastructure, and have pointedly excluded suicide bombers in Israel or Iraq from its definition of terrorism.

In 2014 we are told that Saudi Arabia will pay rewards to those who provide information about terror finance.  If this is actually enforced, Money Jihad predicts that it will be used against Shia dissidents, particularly in its oil rich, Shia-dominant Eastern Province (see related commentary by Amy Myers Jaffe here), or against those who transfer money to Shias in Bahrain or Syria.

It will not be used to curtail Saudi money flowing to Somalia, Bangladesh, Chechnya, or any of the other countries where Saudi Arabia has strategic interests.

h1

Saudis spooked by sputtering oil prices

October 31, 2013

Sweeter news than any Halloween candy, the T. Boone Pickens’s blog is reporting that the Gulf monarchies are suffering from increased U.S. energy production that has helped keep the global oil price in check.

Perhaps the Saudis wanted the U.S. to bomb Syria, not just because it would help Saudi-sponsored rebels to defeat the Shia-backed Alawite regime in Damascus, because it would have helped increase instability in the Middle East and drive up oil market prices.

The next time our heads of state meet, U.S. presidents won’t have to hold hands with or bow to the Saudi king.

From the Daily Pickens on Oct. 20:

Arab Sheiks Need – And Want – Higher Oil Prices

As U.S. oil and gas production numbers continue to climb, oil prices have leveled off. In fact, for the first time in three years, some American consumers are seeing the price of gasoline at the pump dip below $3 a gallon.

And that’s got Arab sheiks worried.

According to The New York Times – and T. Boone Pickens – the social commitments of the monarchies in the Persian Gulf require hundreds of billions of dollars each year. But lower oil prices and diminishing reserves are making that increasingly difficult, especially for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia:

Thus, on top of declining oil reserves, rapidly rising domestic energy consumption and increasing energy-supply diversification among its allies, the kingdom’s spiraling spending is also fast raising the break-even oil price for Saudi Arabia and all five of the other Gulf monarchies; in other words, the price of a barrel of oil that these states need in order to balance their books is getting higher and higher. In Bahrain it’s now over $115 (far higher than yesterday’s price of around $102) while in Oman it’s up to $104.

There is no easy short-term fix for this drain on the Saudi treasury.

Moreover, spending for stability’s sake in Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies will necessarily be quite short-lived. The kingdom pledged a record-breaking $500 billion for “welfare” this year — most to be spent on social security subsidies and new public sector jobs.

Such vast wealth distribution can’t be kept going for much longer. That level of public expenditure is not sustainable and it flies in the face of decades of efforts to promote better fiscal accountability in the kingdom and wean the population off handouts and public-sector entitlement.

h1

Back on top: U.S. world’s biggest energy producer

October 14, 2013

Hydraulic fracturing is quickly changing the global balance of power.  This year U.S. has become or will shortly become the #1 producer of oil and gas on the planet.  This analysis comes from the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. Is Overtaking Russia as Largest Oil-and-Gas Producer

The U.S. is overtaking Russia as the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas, a startling shift that is reshaping markets and eroding the clout of traditional energy-rich nations.

U.S. energy output has been surging in recent years, a comeback fueled by shale-rock formations of oil and natural gas that was unimaginable a decade ago. A Wall Street Journal analysis of global data shows that the U.S. is on track to pass Russia as the world’s largest producer of oil and gas combined this year—if it hasn’t already.

The U.S. ascendance comes as Russia has struggled to maintain its energy output and has yet to embrace technologies such as hydraulic fracturing that have boosted American reserves.

“This is a remarkable turn of events,” said Adam Sieminski, head of the U.S. Energy Information Administration. “This is a new era of thinking about market conditions, and opportunities created by these conditions, that you wouldn’t in a million years have dreamed about.”

The U.S. produced the equivalent of about 22 million barrels a day of oil, natural gas and related fuels in July, according to figures from the EIA and the International Energy Agency. Neither agency has data for Russia’s gas output this year, but Moscow’s forecast for 2013 oil-and-gas production works out to about 21.8 million barrels a day.

U.S. imports of natural gas and crude oil have fallen 32% and 15%, respectively, in the past five years, narrowing the U.S. trade deficit. And since the U.S. is such a big consumer of energy, the shift to producing more of its own oil and gas has left substantial fuel supplies available for other buyers. Nations that rely on peddling petroleum for their economic strength and political clout face dwindling market power as a result. Oil prices so far remain high, however, closing Wednesday at $104.10 a barrel, up 18% from a year ago.

Many analyses of energy markets look only at crude oil. But Russia and the U.S. also are major players in natural-gas markets, where they far outproduce countries such as Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer.

The U.S. last year tapped more natural gas than Russia for the first time since 1982, according to data from the International Energy Agency. Russia’s exports have been crimped by rising competition and the economic slump in Europe. Russia forecasts that its gas production will increase slightly in coming years, but its forecast for this year is below current U.S. production.

The U.S. is also catching up in the race to pump crude. Russia produced an average of 10.8 million barrels of oil and related fuel a day in the first half of this year. That was about 900,000 barrels a day more than the U.S.—but down from a gap of three million barrels a day a few years ago, according to the IEA.

The amount of crude from two of the hottest plays in the U.S.—the Bakken oil field in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford shale formation in South Texas—continues to rise rapidly…

Readers should take a look at this video from Fox News which addresses the strategic implications of this development for U.S. national security.  The shift means a reduced likelihood of U.S. entanglement in Middle Eastern affairs, less risk of disruption due to volatility in and hostility from that part of the world, and a reduced flow of petrodollars to regimes that fund terrorism.

h1

The Middle East and your price at the pump

September 30, 2013

What to do about Syria?  One thing is to rid ourselves of the remaining vestiges of oil dependence on that part of the world.

In a recent op-ed in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Chris Faulkner points out that Syrian energy output is minimal, but the political volatility puts a Middle Eastern premium onto our gas bills.  If we pursue further steps toward energy self-reliance in North America, we could minimize the risks of price volatility and supply disruptions.

Policies being proposed by the energy sector are making more sense than the policies being pursued by our elected officials.  Read it all:

Energy independence is the best response to Syria crisis

When an American missile strike in Syria seemed inevitable, oil futures shot up to a two-year high. Just days later, as U.S. officials began considering a diplomatic response, prices fell.

Many analysts have blamed these fluctuations on investor overreaction — Syria provides less than 0.1 percent of the world’s oil. But such assessments are dangerously naïve.

Any intervention in Syria would have impacted America’s access to oil and no one can safely assume there won’t be another Middle East crisis on the horizon.

That’s why the United States must reduce its dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Syria might not be a major oil producer or exporter, but one of President Bashar Assad’s chief supporters, Iran, holds the world’s fourth-largest proven conventional oil reserves.

More than that, Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, a shipping lane that’s essential to the transport of roughly 35 percent of all seaborne oil.

There’s no telling what an Iranian response to a U.S. attack on Syria might look like, but if the mullahs even hint at shutting down the Strait, oil prices could jump dramatically.

The ripple effects of a U.S. military action wouldn’t stop there. A strike against Assad’s regime would inflame relations with other oil-rich nations.

The conflict has already worsened sectarian tensions in Iraq, OPEC’s second-largest producer of crude oil.

Even defusing the Syrian crisis won’t end the civil war there, nor diminish the prospect of future strife, rebellions, or war. Indeed, the Syrian civil war has stoked anew the centuries-old enmity between Islamic sects that threatens to engulf the entire region — a region that holds more than half of the world’s proven conventional oil reserves.

The situation in Syria has made clear why it’s so important for the United States to make certain our energy interests aren’t tied to the volatile politics of the Middle East.

In practice, this means embracing technologies like hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling and projects like the Keystone XL pipeline. These represent historic opportunities for America to gain greater control over our own energy security.

In the case of Keystone XL, a proposed pipeline that would deliver crude from western Canada’s vast oil sands to America’s Gulf Coast, the Obama Administration could dramatically increase the amount of oil we receive from our neighbor to the north.

The U.S. Department of Energy has estimated that, once completed, the pipeline would deliver as much as 830,000 barrels of oil a day, or roughly half of what we currently import from the Middle East…

h1

Fueling ourselves leaves Saudi Arabia in the dust

September 9, 2013

Increased domestic energy production is enabling the United States to pursue its own foreign policy objectives without having to run a three legged race with Saudi Arabia.  Hydraulic fracturing allows America to begin to separate itself from a distant monarchy that imposes ruthless sharia law on its people and funds terrorism around the world.  Reuters has the story:

h1

Plan would reduce Canada’s need for OPEC oil

September 6, 2013

Canada is considering a proposal to fuel itself by building a pipeline from the oilsands of Alberta to the more heavily populated provinces of eastern Canada.  Although Canada is already a net energy exporter, this pipeline would be a further step in weaning North America off Arab oil and reducing the flow of petrodollars to de facto state sponsors of terrorism.

The rationale for the “Energy East” pipeline comes to us from a marvelous column by Ezra Levant (h/t Blazing Cat Fur) in the Sun:

Freedom oil: Energy East pipeline appealing and has a politically important spinoff

The largest oil refinery in Canada isn’t in Alberta. Neither is it in Ontario or Quebec, the biggest provinces with the most cars.

It’s the Irving Oil refinery in New Brunswick.

Trouble is, that refinery, like most of eastern Canada, buys imported oil, including from OPEC countries. It’s a paradox: Canada produces an enormous amount of oil, but we export the good stuff to the U.S. and import conflict oil for ourselves.

It’s not just that Canadian oil is produced in a more environmentally friendly manner than OPEC oil; we also use the proceeds for peaceful purposes, treat our workers well and respect human rights. It’s like the difference between Canadian diamonds and African blood diamonds.

There’s another difference, too: Canadian oil is cheaper – on any given day, oil from Canada’s oilsands sells at a $10 to $35 discount to world prices, mainly because of a pipeline bottleneck. So Irving Oil is spending literally millions of extra dollars every day on expensive foreign imports. All for a lack of a pipeline connecting Alberta to the East.

Which is why the proposed Energy East pipeline, announced last week by TransCanada Pipelines, is so appealing.

Its main purpose is to ship oil, of course. But politically it has a more important spin-off. At an estimated $12 billion cost, the pipeline is easily the largest infrastructure project in Canada. Construction will employ thousands of workers, mainly in eastern Canada. And the more affordable crude oil it ships will save thousands more jobs at refineries not just in Saint John but along the route in Quebec, where several refineries have recently closed and more are teetering on the brink.

The pipeline will carry a staggering 1.1 million barrels a day, enough to supply the refineries along its route and then some.

And so TransCanada and Irving Oil propose to build a tanker export facility in Saint John. Instead of Saudi tankers bringing shariah oil to Canada, imagine the possibility of Canadian tankers sending freedom oil out.

At the announcement ceremony at the Saint John refinery, rows of workers stood in hard hats for a photo, and behind them and around the site were simple banners reading “Alberta, Always Welcome.”

Nothing to do with economics, nothing to do with jobs. Everything to do with national unity and calling out the unseemly anti-Alberta bigotry that animates so many anti-oilsands extremists.

What a noble, dignified, grand answer to the critics, like the NDP’s Thomas Mulcair, who has called the oilsands an economic “disease.”

New Brunswick knows this pipeline is the most important economic opportunity they will have in a generation; their partisan provincial legislature issued a unanimous statement of support for it.

Alberta wins with a new path for its oil, a path that can’t be blocked by a pro-OPEC U.S. president.

Quebec and New Brunswick refineries win with affordable feedstock. Construction workers win.Canada wins with a deep-water port to export oil to the world.

Who loses? Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Angola, three odious dictatorships that will have to peddle their blood oil somewhere else…

h1

Libya mess shows need for energy independence

September 5, 2013

The apparent crumbling of the Libyan state and related, ongoing spike in global oil prices illustrate the importance of ending Western dependence on Middle Eastern and North African oil.  From The Telegraph:

“We are currently witnessing the collapse of state in Libya, and the country is getting closer to local wars for oil revenues,” said the Swiss-based group Petromatrix.

The country’s oil ministry said production has slumped to an average of 300,000 barrels per day (b/d) in August, down by more than four-fifths from its peak after the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime two years ago.

“Militia groups are behaving like terrorists, using control over oil as political leverage to extract concessions,” said Dr Elizabeth Stephens, head of political risk at insurers Jardine Lloyd Thompson. Port closures and strikes have compounded the damage but the deeper story is the disintegration of political authority.

Libya is the most extreme example of political mayhem around the world disrupting output and causing a chronic shortfall in oil supply. Production has slumped in Iraq, Nigeria, Iran, Yemen and Syria itself, each for different reasons.

This has cut daily global supply by 1.1m over the past year to 92m, explaining why Brent crude prices have remained stubbornly high despite the slump in Europe and China’s slowdown. To compound the problem, Libya’s oil is some of the highest quality produced in the Middle East and the kind preferred by European refiners. Jitters over Syria have already pushed Brent to $115, near levels that typically erode confidence and inflict serious economic damage…

Is it logical to remain reliant on a region fraught with despotism, Islamist rebellions, intra-Islamic sectarianism, corruption, and utter disrespect for the rights of religious minorities?

No.  The good news is that the U.S., Canada, and Europe do not have to entangle themselves in the Middle East if they are willing to bring the environmentally reactionary fringe under heel.  There is plenty of oil and gas beneath our very feet if we are willing to extract it.  And we will do so in a more environmentally responsible fashion than Arab oilmen anyway.

As part of the president’s proposal to punish Assad for gassing children to death, Obama should simultaneously announce his support for the Keystone XL pipeline, increased offshore and federal land drilling, and ease permit issuance for hydraulic fracturing.  What good is a solitary, short-term military campaign without a longer term strategy for peace?

h1

Government shares wealth with MILF

July 18, 2013

The central government of the Philippines has brokered a deal with the radical Moro Islamic Liberation Front to split revenues generated in the breakaway southern island of Mindanao.  The MILF (or “Bangsamoro”) will receive 75 percent of tax revenues, 75 percent of mining revenues, and 50 percent of fossil fuel revenues, with the central government retaining the balance.  The “crown jewel” of the agreement is that the MILF will receive their whopping cut through an automatic, annual, haggle-free grant from the central government.

It remains to be seen which taxes, such as zakat, jizya, or kharaj, the MILF may seek to impose on Mindanao residents.  The agreement is reminiscent of a truce between the government of Pakistan and militants in the tribal belt that resulted in the imposition of jizya against Sikhs in that country in 2009.

From the Philippine Star on Tuesday:

MANILA, Philippines – A wealth-sharing deal with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) is advantageous to the country and “will stand the test of legality and constitutionality,” the chief of the government panel negotiating peace with Muslim rebels said yesterday.

In a press briefing at Malacañang, chief negotiator Miriam Coronel-Ferrer said a wealth-sharing scheme approved on Saturday was justified as it would make the envisioned Bangsamoro entity self-sustaining and progressive.

The Bangsamoro is also entitled to automatic appropriation from the central government.

Based on the agreement, the Bangsamoro entity gets 75 percent share in taxes and revenues from natural resources and metallic minerals and 50 percent from energy and other mineral resources.

Ferrer said that of all the provisions in the wealth-sharing annex, “the jewel in the crown” was the provision entitling Bangsamoro to automatic appropriation and regular release of budget.

The allocation will be in the form of an annual “block grant” from the central government similar to the internal revenue allotment (IRA) received by local government units.

“The formula for the automatic appropriation of block grant will be provided in the basic law. Many of us have not focused on this detail because much of the reporting on media have concentrated on the sharing arrangements with regard to natural resources but, as I said, this is the jewel in the crown,” Ferrer said.

At the same time, Ferrer said the agreement provided that revenues collected by the Bangsamoro from additional taxes and their share in government income from natural resources would be deducted from the annual block grants on the fourth year of the operation of the regular Bangsamoro government.

“This provision came from the MILF. It indicated that behind the haggling for more share is the intent to be less and less dependent on the national government,” Ferrer said.

“It indicated that the intention is not to get the ‘lion’s share’ for its own sake but to be able, in the future, to stand tall as a progressive and peaceful region; an equal partner of the central government in an equally peaceful and progressive country,” she said.

“This, indeed, is the true meaning of partnership – a partnership that is not based on dependency and patronage, but on the strength and capacities introduced by both for the benefit of the whole,” she added.

Ferrer said this was a unique provision because there would be automatic appropriation that would spare the region from the constraints of central budgeting process.

“I would like to say that this is a structural difference. This is not just an add-on in terms of additional percentage or whatever but this, basically, redefines the whole structure with regard to the financing of the Bangsamoro government,” Ferrer said…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,203 other followers