Measure P Will Be Crippling

Sunday, August 3, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

I cannot stress enough to the people of Santa Barbara County just how crippling the passage of Measure P would be to our communities. Many of us here in this county, I feel, have blindly jumped on board the “no fracking” bandwagon without taking into account the role that the oil companies play in our local economy and communities.

From a strictly economic standpoint, the oil companies in 2013 alone gave over $16.4 million to the county government with $10.2 million of that going to local schools and another $2.1 million to fire protection agencies, but all of this pales in comparison to $291 million that the oil companies contribute to our local economy as a whole. In terms of the effects on the community, oil companies employ over 2,000 people in Santa Barbara County. Those employees are hard-working families and citizens who would be out of work overnight should Measure P pass.

Seeing the role that the oil companies play here in Santa Barbara County, and have played for generations, I pose all of you a question. How do you imagine the future of Santa Barbara County be without them? It looks grim in my opinion.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Another one? What, y'all don't have vision? Grim? lol! Look at all the shillings the industry has, rich with 'em.

spacey (anonymous profile)
August 3, 2014 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is America. You can become weathly too if the Water Guardians and such groups would allow it and you worked at it. Don't be jealous of wealth. hates oil because it can make money. I wonder if you would like living in a remote part of the world where there is no chance of drilling for oil. Go carry your water from the river in a bucket. Oil isn't the problem, steaming heavy crude has been going on for at least 40 years. Tell me, what is the vision? Do you know the mechanics of drilling a well, how deep do they go, the process? Where they are located?That they are now only steamed a short time with undrinkable water, then move on to another area. Learn, you will appreciate the new technology or do you hate technology too. Whoops, you are using a computer.

sensiblemolly (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A pattern is emerging here.

Several people with different names citing figures from 2013 regarding how much the county relied on oil revenues, followed by claims that all that money will disappear if P passes.

The PR firm behind this messaging knows its false. Do you?

All approved projects will be exempt. That means everything that brought in money in 2013 would continue bringing in that exact same amount of money.

Hopefully voters are intelligent enough to sort this out.

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
August 5, 2014 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think it's unusual for more than one person to cite a reference that's public and openly available..

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 5, 2014 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal) does not hate oil because of money.

Their name indicates their concern - 350 ppm of CO2 is what is important to them. Period. Fullstop. That's it.

If hated money, they would oppose all forms of money making. Gambling. Wall Street. Computers. Music. Sports. Etc. They do not do that.

Not a sensible post at all. But, what's new.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 5, 2014 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My question to the OP, why is it not crippling, now?

The status quo will continue. Those revenues and jobs will continue.

What will not happen is for fracking to START in SB County.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 5, 2014 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fracking causes earthquakes. Do frackers care?

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The environmentalist whackos tell us fracking causes quakes. The USGS isnt so sure. Who to believe. Hmmm

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
August 8, 2014 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe USGS:" It does appear that wastewater disposal (from oil wells) induced the M5.3 Raton Basin,Colorado earthquake in 2011 as well as the M5.6 quake that struck Prague, Oklahoma in 2011,leading to a few injuries and damage to more than a dozen homes."

USGS: "waste-water injection the previous day “trigger[ed] a cascade of earthquakes, including a larger one, [which] has important implications for reducing seismic risk"

Recent study in peer reviewed, Geology says extreme oil production explosion in last decade with its waste water injection led to an 11-fold increase in the number of earthquakes occurring in areas that are typically tectonically calm, including Arkansas, Texas, Ohio & Colorado in the past four years alone.

Science mag:" Sharp increase in central Oklahoma seismicity since 2008 induced by massive wastewater injection"

Where they are "not so sure" is in exact details of the process but they're sure enough to saylink between oil waste water injection & induced earthquakes is strong.

Oklahoma averaged two 3.0 & higher quakes/yr between 1978-2008 according to seismologist Austin Holland w/ Oklahoma Geological Survey.Holland says in the first 1/2 of 2014 alone, Ok.has experienced more than 253 magnitude 3.0 & higher quakes. Holland says the # will increase once OGS scientists analyze the backlog of data that accumulated over the July 4th holiday.

Though USGS says its rare for fracking itself to cause quakes, it does happen.

& there is credible evidence is emerging that it may play a larger role than once thought.

Economics:County staff said Measure P would have no immediate impact on county taxes or revenue.

Ol industry contributes a fraction (2.5%) of property tax revenue to the county &none is impacted as Measure P doesn't apply to current oil production.

Want a drop in property values near drilling sites? Some people near these operations have been unable to get loans or insurance. This could lead to lower overall property taxes (the other 97.5%) & money for schools.

Oil production increases truck traffic, road maintenance costs, emergency response cost, etc. Other localities charge an extraction fee to cover these. We don't.So we may already be paying more out than we bring in from oil production.

The oil industry accounts for just 1% of jobs & GDP, even considering all direct & indirect contributions. No existing jobs are impacted by P as it doesn't apply to current production.

Expanding extreme extraction puts the other 99% of our economy (agriculture, tourism, &high tech) at risk.Folks live &work here cause of the healthy environment. W/out that we wont thrive.

Measure P will protect & preserve jobs & tax revenue, & help us build long-term prosperity & lead the world in clean tech, energy efficiency& other opportunities for growth.

We don't need to choose between our environment & our economy, both will be better off with Measure P in place.

morgainele (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So the measure P proponents say that existing operations are exempt.
Not so, the way the measure is written, future well acidizing as part of a maintenance program for de-scaling would be banned. So at that point you have to shut your field down. Anyhow if they got a ban in place why would they let some production occur, while others are banned? This measure is flawed and not right for the county. Rewrite it to ban fracking and only fracking.
NO on Pretentious Measure P

catskinner (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2014 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tabatha - your statment " does not hate oil because of money" could be the understatement of the year.

The majority of's $10million in funding between 2001 to 2009 was oil company funding. it is a multi-million dollar campaign run by staff earning six-digit salaries.
More than half of the US$10-million came from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), the Rockefeller Family Fund and the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, where McKibben, a trustee, was paid US$25,000 per year (2001-09). Since 2007, the Rockefellers have paid US$4-million towards 1Sky and, tax returns say. The Schumann Center provided US$1.5-million to McKibben’s three campaigns as well as US$2.7-million to fund the Environmental Journalism Program at Middlebury College, in Vermont, where McKibben is on staff.

Full story here:

14noscams (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2014 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

14noscams - there is much desired in your reading and logical skills.

" does not hate oil because of money" is 100% true. is concerned about the content of CO2 being higher than 350 ppm.

And your own logic disproved what you are trying to say.

You are saying that 350 loves money (to fund their organization).

I am saying THE SAME thing - does not hate oil because of money - i.e. money is not their concern - which means the amount of money is not their concern.

From your arguments, I think you probably read it as " does not hate oil but they hate money". Read it again. That is not what it states. It states that does not hate oil because of the money oil makes. Which means they do not object to either the money that oil makes or the money that they raise.


tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 24, 2014 at 1:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: