NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Oil Spill Recovery

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Bisofeyr
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 473
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

[PASSED] Oil Spill Recovery

Postby Bisofeyr » Thu Dec 07, 2023 10:37 am

The World Assembly,

Lauding previous efforts to institute reasonable regulations surrounding offshore oil drilling, especially through GAR#95: "Responsible Offshore Drilling", which creates many sensible and well-crafted provisions to minimise the environmental impact of offshore drilling while still permitting economic, resource-driven, and profit-driven activities related to this drilling,

Acknowledging that, while this previous World Assembly legislation does institute many sensible guidelines, it falls short in the establishment of responsibility and the minimisation of environmental impacts in oil spills, instead giving vague instructions to reduce severity,

Believing that further legislation is needed to ensure cooperation in the recovery from oil spills, which can result in international environmental consequences,

Hereby enacts the following provisions:

  1. An "offshore drill operator" shall, within this resolution, be defined as any entity which directly engages in offshore drilling or otherwise has private or public ownership over any offshore drilling operation.
  2. An "oil spill" shall, within this resolution, be defined as the accidental or deliberate release of crude oil, refined petroleum products, or any other type of oil into an oceanic or marine environment. Some, although not all, potential causes of an oil spill include the failure or malfunction of oil drilling equipment, natural disasters causing the release of oil stored or being produced from an offshore drill, and the improper handling of oil during transport by relevant entities.
  3. Offshore drill operators which are involved in an oil spill must take appropriate actions to minimise the environmental impact of such a spill, and bring the water quality and surrounding environmental conditions of the spill to a comparable level to before the spill. The characterisation of "comparable level" shall be at the discretion of the World Assembly Responsible Offshore Drilling Administration ("WARODA"), which shall review all conditions surrounding an oil spill and make appropriate recommendations and requirements. Appropriate action shall be characterised as the following actions, although member nations are permitted and encouraged to require further actions to ensure the environmental recovery of such an action:
    1. For offshore drill operators whose operations fall under World Assembly jurisdiction, or who operate an offshore oil drill within the territory of a member nation, the offshore drill operator must take on the full financial responsibility of bringing the environmental conditions to such a level as required by WARODA. If the offshore drill operator is unable to cover the full finances required without substantial financial burden, the member nation within their jurisdiction may provide financial support, and in extreme cases, WARODA in collaboration with the WA General Accounting Office ("GAO") may finance the recovery following the cleanup, given an appropriate assessment by both WARODA and the GAO, with the GAO creating a financing plan where the offshore drill operator shall pay the financed funds back to the World Assembly.
    2. For offshore drill operators whose operations do not fall under World Assembly jurisdiction, who are involved in an oil spill outside of the territory of a member nation, all member nations must ban the import of products of the offshore drill operators and financial collaboration with the perpetrating entities, until such a time that appropriate action is taken to bring the oil spill to a comparable level as before the oil spill.
    3. In the event of an oil spill, any responsible offshore drill operator whose operations fall under World Assembly jurisdiction, or who operate an offshore oil drill within the territory of a member nation, shall submit a report to WARODA detailing the cause, plan of action for recovery from the spill, and plan to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future for their offshore drilling operations. WARODA may request further documentation from these offshore drill operators involved in an oil spill, and the offshore drill operator must provide as quickly as they possibly can.
  4. Offshore drill operators, member nations, and other entities may work to finance these cleanup measures by requesting or requiring other corporations or entities directly or indirectly involved in the spill to collaborate in the actions outlined by clause three. Additionally, in the event that an oil spill spans multiple nations, all member nations shall work to collaborate in the enforcement of these actions, and shall work with non-member nations in a good-faith effort to ensure that provisions as laid out by this resolution are enacted.
  5. Additional regulations surrounding the funding of cleanup efforts of an oil spill may be enacted by this World Assembly. Additionally, specific regulations on offshore oil drills to promote safety and environmental prosperity may be further enacted by the World Assembly or its member nations.
  6. No offshore drill operator, nor any other entity, shall be permitted to intentionally cause an oil spill for any reason.

I believe that oil spills cause more environmental distress than nearly all other large-scale disasters created due to resource-driven pursuits, and while we do have sufficient legislation surrounding the prevention of oil spills and safety of offshore drills, we do not have sufficient legislation surrounding the response. As such, we present this draft.

OOC: Big thanks to The Ice States for taking a cursory glance at this, they were very helpful. I was thinking this may fall into Environmental - Mining, but am not 100% sure. Please let me know your thoughts!
Last edited by Refuge Isle on Sun Jun 02, 2024 1:01 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Simone Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2019
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Fri Dec 08, 2023 12:25 am

Aim to improve on GAR444 (which was repealed and never replaced).

Remember that jurisdictions on waters is very ill defined in WA law because GAR168 is very vague about where international waters end and domestic waters begin. I guess that's a necessity because of all the RP issues.
(He/him/it). I speak in a personal capacity OOC unless specified. My IC GA submissions (including the white bear RP) are not related to my IC GP roles.

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 473
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Mon Dec 11, 2023 1:05 pm

Simone Republic wrote:Aim to improve on GAR444 (which was repealed and never replaced).

Remember that jurisdictions on waters is very ill defined in WA law because GAR168 is very vague about where international waters end and domestic waters begin. I guess that's a necessity because of all the RP issues.

I believe that, between the extant GAR95 and this proposed legislation, it would serve as an adequate replacement for GAR444. GAR95 takes adequate measures to ensure the safety of oil drills, whereas this proposed piece of legislation shall take adequate measures to take cleanup actions in the case that a spill does happen. This covers the extent of what GAR444 did, with this proposal specifically tackling clauses four and five of the now defunct resolution.

The repeal's issues with those two clauses say that clause four is too specific, not allowing better cleanup technologies to be developed, which this proposal does not, and that clause five is an overreach of WA authority that may be applied to nations in which it is not needed, which this proposal does not do.

I am confident that nations can figure out which organizations would and would not fall under their jurisdiction as laid out in this proposal.

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 473
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:05 pm

Bump

User avatar
Tigrisia
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Dec 22, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tigrisia » Tue Mar 19, 2024 3:56 am

While we applaud the goal of the resolution, we believe that it is totally inadequate and could even make matters worse (OOC: Have a look at the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and what went wrong there. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... _oil_spill)

Bisofeyr wrote:An "offshore drill operator" shall, within this resolution, be defined as any entity which directly engages in offshore drilling or otherwise has private or public ownership over any offshore drilling operation.


This excludes companies that are at least partly responsible for drilling, such as certification companies and similar enterprises. Also, this makes it possible to create a corporation that is only responsible for drilling, while the company that is actually responsible can get out of the affair.


Bisofeyr wrote:For offshore drill operators whose operations fall under World Assembly jurisdiction, or who operate an offshore oil drill within the territory of a member nation, the offshore drill operator must take on the full financial responsibility of bringing the environmental conditions to such a level as required by WARODA.


What do you mean by "territory"? 12 miles? Within the continental shelf?

We also believe that this regulation lacks the aspect of international cooperation, which is necessary, as often, companies of different member states are responsible and an oil spill may be too big to handle for a small country pn its own. This goes beyond pure financial aid and covers for example the sending of resources, ships or personnel.

For the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia at the World Assembly
Junior Consular Secretary Thandi Enfantia

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 473
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Tue Mar 19, 2024 9:09 am

Tigrisia wrote:While we applaud the goal of the resolution, we believe that it is totally inadequate and could even make matters worse (OOC: Have a look at the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and what went wrong there. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... _oil_spill)

(OOC: this is largely about the cleanup in the event that an oil spill does happen, I believe GAR95 being extant would address this concern? Correct me if I'm misinterpreting anything you're saying.)

Bisofeyr wrote:An "offshore drill operator" shall, within this resolution, be defined as any entity which directly engages in offshore drilling or otherwise has private or public ownership over any offshore drilling operation.


This excludes companies that are at least partly responsible for drilling, such as certification companies and similar enterprises. Also, this makes it possible to create a corporation that is only responsible for drilling, while the company that is actually responsible can get out of the affair.

"This should now be addressed, though I am somewhat dissatisfied with the clunky language."

Bisofeyr wrote:For offshore drill operators whose operations fall under World Assembly jurisdiction, or who operate an offshore oil drill within the territory of a member nation, the offshore drill operator must take on the full financial responsibility of bringing the environmental conditions to such a level as required by WARODA.


What do you mean by "territory"? 12 miles? Within the continental shelf?


"Whatever a member nation claims as their territory; we are not in the business of deciding that for each individual nation."

We also believe that this regulation lacks the aspect of international cooperation, which is necessary, as often, companies of different member states are responsible and an oil spill may be too big to handle for a small country pn its own. This goes beyond pure financial aid and covers for example the sending of resources, ships or personnel.

"This new draft should hopefully address this concern."

User avatar
Tigrisia
Envoy
 
Posts: 276
Founded: Dec 22, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tigrisia » Tue Mar 19, 2024 3:40 pm

Bisofeyr wrote:
Tigrisia wrote:(OOC: this is largely about the cleanup in the event that an oil spill does happen, I believe GAR95 being extant would address this concern? Correct me if I'm misinterpreting anything you're saying.)



OOC: No, I am referring to what happened before that. For example the company that did the whole oil thing was BP (they were the customers and paying for all the shit), though they were not involved in the drilling process butt applied pressure and chose the course and had also people on site. The platform was owned by Transocean, the drilling itself was done by Halliburton. Schlumberger was responsible for the cement certification. Responsible for the oil spill was BP, because they commissioned everything, but they did not own anything except the drilling rights. These are only the companies we know of, there may be many more subcontractors. And to whom should the resolution apply? I would say to all of them. I recommend to clear up provision 1, so also BP falls under the provisions.

IC: Thank you for addressing our concerns.


For the Delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia at the World Assembly
Junior Consular Secretary Thandi Enfantia

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 473
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:13 pm

Bump

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 473
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Sun May 19, 2024 9:41 am

I just want to take a moment to address some comments I saw in an off-site forum (and I admittedly have little to no desire to register an account on every odd NS-related site whenever there's a comment I disagree with, so I shall respond here). Notably, that this proposal is redundant given the following clauses in GA 95:
ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Responsible Offshore Drilling Administration, or WARODA, with the following purposes:
...
2. To research methods and tactics for preventing the compromise of offshore drilling systems by fire, explosion, natural disaster, and other causes,

3. To research methods and tactics for containing and reducing the effects on the environment should such a compromise occur,
...

While these clauses are certainly beneficial to oil spill cleanups, neither of them actually engage members or entities therein in the cleanup measures, because (2) is preventative and not in response to oil spills when they do end up occurring (and no amount of prevention, other than not drilling at all, will prevent every oil spill that could potentially occur), and while (3) does research methods and tactics for containing and reducing the effects of an oil spill, the actual substantive operative clause of GA 95 "REQUIRES oil producers to be in compliance with the limits, rules, and regulations made by the WARODA;" is phrased in such a way that does not actually compel offshore drill operators to engage in cleanup, because simply having the knowledge of methods and tactics for containing and reducing the effects of an oil spill is not equivalent to established "limits, rules, and regulations".

While there is a clause in GA 95 to "REQUIRES oil producers to attempt, to the best of their ability, to reduce the severity of the environmental impact in the event of a compromise of one of their offshore drilling systems;", it is a frequent occurrence for vague clauses in prior resolutions to have future resolutions clarify the scope and procedures behind said clause. This clause in GA 95 is far too vague to ensure consistent application and hold entities responsible for spills that that cause.

And, more than anything else, GA 95 only focuses on oil rigs within World Assembly waters, while this clarifies procedures that WA nations must undertake in the event of an oil spill outside of WA waters, which is where most oil spills will occur. If an oil company has a rig one meter outside a WA nation's EEZ, they are completely off the hook under GA 95.

User avatar
Simone Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2019
Founded: Jul 09, 2019
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Simone Republic » Mon May 20, 2024 5:55 am

3b is unrealistic given that the Russians can sell their oil right now despite sanctions. I am not a fan of extraterrestrial jurisdiction because in theory there are only just under 20,000 WA nations but 280,000 nations in the multiverse as a whole. Of course how you see this may differ, but I don't see a reason why an oil company can't sell to non WA nations and there's nothing that the WA can do about it.

This kinda ends up being binding on WA oil companies polluting in non WA waters, but not non WA oil companies polluting in non WA waters. It just bifurcates the oil market into a WA one and a non WA one.
Last edited by Simone Republic on Mon May 20, 2024 5:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
(He/him/it). I speak in a personal capacity OOC unless specified. My IC GA submissions (including the white bear RP) are not related to my IC GP roles.

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 473
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Tue May 21, 2024 11:20 am

Simone Republic wrote:3b is unrealistic given that the Russians can sell their oil right now despite sanctions. I am not a fan of extraterrestrial jurisdiction because in theory there are only just under 20,000 WA nations but 280,000 nations in the multiverse as a whole. Of course how you see this may differ, but I don't see a reason why an oil company can't sell to non WA nations and there's nothing that the WA can do about it.

This kinda ends up being binding on WA oil companies polluting in non WA waters, but not non WA oil companies polluting in non WA waters. It just bifurcates the oil market into a WA one and a non WA one.

This is true, but it doesn't change the fact that it is still more effective than the WA making absolutely no comment on what goes on in non-members. I also think there is generally merit in the WA preventing its members from importing oil in contravention of WA law, effectively letting them bypass it if they go through a foreign entity. This, ultimately, prevents that, and I think that the good outweighs the potential negatives.

I also don't 100% buy the argument that, within the canon of the WA, that every single nation registered for this site should be deemed a nation within the world of the WA. Sure, some liberties can be taken, but I think that in a realm where nations CTE after 28(?) days and span all technological ages, we can assume that the world the WA exists in is not the entirety of NS. Sure, I think it's unreasonable to assume that there are no nations that exist outside the scope of the WA, but I see no reason we ought not to exclude, say, all of the card farming nations; if anything, I would presume that they are canonically political subdivisions of the overarching nation. That's not to say that your argument is entirely untrue or invalid, but I think it overstates what the practical scope of the issue would be.

User avatar
TaeKook
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Feb 13, 2022
Corrupt Dictatorship

Clarification inquiry

Postby TaeKook » Wed May 29, 2024 8:14 pm

Am I correct in understanding that Clause 3(b) obligates WA member states to ban imports and financial collaboration with offshore drill operators from non-WA states until they comply with the requirement of lifting the ban stipulated in the same clause?

If my understanding is indeed accurate, I am concerned that this clause could raise sovereignty issues and have economic impacts on WA member states. Firstly, if WA and non-WA nations coexist in the same region and the latter triggers Clause 3(b), the former is obliged to impose a ban on the entities involved in that particular nation. This could strain diplomatic relations between harmoniously coexisting nations, especially if the entities being banned are significant contributors to the economy of the non-WA member nation. Furthermore, if the nation follows socialism, where only state-owned and government enterprises are legal, this could further escalate tensions within the region.

Secondly, compliance with Clause 3(b) may severely harm the economies of WA member states that are dependent on imports or financial ties with non-WA entities (offshore drill operators). As far as I am aware, there is no provision, or legislation to my knowledge (enlighten me if there is), for economic support to WA states in the event that their economy suffers due to compliance with this or any legislation. This would leave WA states to bear the full brunt of potential economic downturns because of such legislation.

User avatar
Tribes Republic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1196
Founded: Jun 15, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tribes Republic » Thu May 30, 2024 1:49 pm

The Colony opposes the WARODA GAR. I believe that the GAR doesn't give a damn about the issues facing the Onchala. Instead, it's just a load of garbage that perpetuates the same old pacha within the GAR. I insist that the GAR needs to get its pacha together and address the concerns of all citizens within its jurisdiction. Onchala la pacha inchala tla ni'ni tla chal on la tla.

The Colony opposes the WARODA GAR. I believe that the GAR doesn't give a damn about the issues facing the Onchala. Instead, it's just a load of garbage that perpetuates the same old shit within the GAR. I insist that the GAR needs to get its shit together and address the concerns of all citizens within its jurisdiction. Outsiders will not determine what the Colony does.


https://www.nationstates.net/nation=tribes_republic/detail=factbook/id=24929
Last edited by Tribes Republic on Thu May 30, 2024 1:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Nation Leader: Principal Chief Giltra Hurid
WA Ambassador: Leui Henri
Nation Name: The Colony of Tribes Republic
RP Population: 700,257(The total estimated combined population of the Colony of Tribes Republic, including Feado Island.)
Nation Tech: PT, MT, PMT

My Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.21

This is Bunny:
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") Copy and paste Bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
(5)At War
(4)Troops On Standby
(3)Ready<--
(2)High Alert
(1)Peace
[url]new link coming soon[/url]

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 473
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Thu May 30, 2024 5:27 pm

For full transparency, I have attached below a copy of a telegram I am in the process of sending to many delegates and influential nations voting against (WA Ministers and the like).

Hey there,

I see that you're voting against the at-vote resolution, Oil Spill Recovery. I appreciate that many of you, as delegates, vote according to an internal regional process. That being said, I feel that much of the criticism against the proposal is unwarranted, so I would like to formally appeal to you to change your vote to vote for the piece of legislation, so that we can help improve our environment substantially. As such, I present to you the following points:
  1. A lot of the criticism levied against the proposal has to do with the way it interacts with GA 95 "Responsible Offshore Drilling", which has to do with the actual prevention and broad regulations surrounding oil spills. While there is a singular clause which references the cleanup of spilled oil, that provision is limited to oil spills or other compromises within the territorial waters of a GA member state, and is so vague that it can be effectively ignored. Specifically, it requires oil producers to attempt to simply reduce the severity of the environmental impact of an oil spill. This is notably short of what ought to be done, for a few reasons:
    1. It only focuses on the environmental impact of oil spills, which is certainly important but fails to take into account responsible regulations in reducing public health impacts, or socioeconomic inequities that may be caused as a result of the spill;
    2. By only requiring nations to attempt to reduce the severity, it opens the door for many entities to fail to make a proper response toward an oil spill, under the virtue that they tried the best with what they had, and claiming that it is a valid interpretation of the international law on the books that they ought not go further than normal business operations to fix the mess they made;
    3. It only requires that the impact be reduced, not brought to comparable levels, which is a massive point of my proposal;
    So, the claim that GA 95 actually covers the ground that this would is an extremely generous reading of that resolution, and one that offshore drill operators have every incentive not to read it as.
  2. There have been a few claims that the clause "If the offshore drill operator is unable to cover the full finances required without substantial financial burden, the member nation within their jurisdiction may provide financial support..." makes it so that nations have to cleanup after irresponsible oil contributors. This is not the case, as this clause simply clarifies that any perpetrating entity must burden the financial/economic burden on their own, and may be granted assistance at the discretion of other entities. This clause is, notably, not binding, and simply opening up options.
  3. Nothing in this proposal is particularly extreme, and simply ensures that the environmental, public health, and socioeconomic impacts of an oil spill are handled by the perpetrating entity effectively and efficiently. There are no punitive measures on offshore drill operators beyond that which holds them responsible for cleaning up their mess. Once their mess has been cleaned, there are no economic or legal burdens they must face in the eyes of the World Assembly. This is not to say that stricter laws may not be enacted, though, and a nation which has punishment in mind can certainly institute that. This proposal was written to be intentionally flexible.

I get that it can be annoying to get all these telegrams regarding the World Assembly, but this is an important issue and one that is truly international. Under the current legislation on the books, an offshore drill operator can cause an oil spill directly outside of your territorial waters and there is little you can do, beyond personal sanctions, to hold them responsible. This resolution helps to combat that. I certainly don't know if this convinced you, but I am steadfast in my representation to the nations of the World Assembly as an environmental advocate.

I hope you can be so convinced as to change your vote on this resolution, given its particular importance to maintaining international goodwill and environmental concerns. I appreciate you reading, and please reach out if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Best,
Bisofeyr


I wanted to post this here so there is no scramble from those who, for whatever reason, did not receive the contents of this message.

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Thu May 30, 2024 5:50 pm

I personally believe that tag campaigns at vote are unproductive.

Make sure you don't send it to those who get mad about this type of thing.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Relicus
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: May 22, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Relicus » Thu May 30, 2024 7:31 pm

Damn

User avatar
The Overmind
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1031
Founded: Dec 12, 2022
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby The Overmind » Thu May 30, 2024 10:31 pm

Fachumonn wrote:I personally believe that tag campaigns at vote are unproductive.

Make sure you don't send it to those who get mad about this type of thing.

It flipped the vote
Free Palestine

Trans men are men | Trans women are women | Sex is non-binary
Assigned sex isn't biological sex | Trans rights are human rights


Neuroscientist | Formerly Heavens Reach | He/Him/His

User avatar
Fachumonn
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1662
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Fachumonn » Fri May 31, 2024 4:53 am

The Overmind wrote:
Fachumonn wrote:I personally believe that tag campaigns at vote are unproductive.

Make sure you don't send it to those who get mad about this type of thing.

It flipped the vote

Well this time I guess I was wrong. Although I think it mostly flipped because IA started voting for it.
GA Authorship Leaderboard | Guide to Campaigning | Other Resources

-11th Delegate of LSC. (May 31 2021-October 16 2022, June 9 2023-August 21 2023, November 1 2023-)

WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His| RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent |

User avatar
Ossenburg
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Oct 10, 2023
Corporate Police State

Postby Ossenburg » Sat Jun 01, 2024 12:20 pm

The part about banning imports is why I will vote against this. If the operators of the drill is a mega corporation, you are now banning all of their imports across the board, which can have a big effect on many people's jobs and the economy without being related to the oil spill. This resolution goes too far and will hurt economies around the world.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Itu Tura

Advertisement

Remove ads