Extremists Block Path to Energy Independence

Saturday, July 12, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

California has the strongest protections in the nation regulating oil production. The regulations were strengthened last year under Senate Bill 4, a law signed by Governor Brown. SB 4’s implementation is already underway, but some out-of-touch special interests want to undermine those protections and jeopardize the quality of life on the Central Coast.

This November, Santa Barbara County voters will decide on Measure P. This misguided proposal will kill local jobs, resulting in the loss of much-needed local tax revenue. A loss of those tax dollars will jeopardize Santa Barbara government’s ability to fund neighborhood libraries, parks, schools, police, and fire services.

In 2012, in Santa Barbara County alone, the oil and gas industry contributed to more than 6,300 jobs, worth more than $502 million in labor income. A UC Santa Barbara economic impact study found that land-based production alone contributes $291 million in economic benefits to Santa Barbara County each year. This economic activity generates significant tax dollars the county simply cannot afford to lose.

Measure P proponents have successfully employed scare tactics by misleading the public into believing this far-reaching ballot initiative only targets hydraulic fracturing. The fact is, they’re turning a highly regulated production technique into a boogey-man simply as a ploy to stop all production in the region.

Energy bans will force California to rely more heavily on imported oil, which will come from other countries and states without the same strong safety standards as in Santa Barbara. SB 4 already requires a scientific study of hydraulic fracturing, a comprehensive environmental impact report, public disclosure of chemicals used, well testing, groundwater monitoring, and prior notification of land owners.

This week, state regulators will be in Santa Maria taking public comment about SB 4. We hope you’ll join us in letting state officials know that these regulations are a solid step forward in securing energy independence and will help provide reliable, affordable domestically produced energy to all Californians.

Founded in 1980, the National Association of Royalty Owners is the only national organization representing solely, and without compromise, oil and gas royalty owners’ interests.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

No, Mr. Hazard, YOU are employing scare tactics. Vote YES on P! U.S. oil production in 2015 at 9.3 million barrels@day will be the highest since 1972! We need more protection, especially of our groundwater supplies. As I've noted on another thread, even Germany is limited test drilling by Exxon due to legitimate scientific fears of fracking polluting their groundwater: led by the beer producers. You are just speaking up for your fellow royalties holders.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 3:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What Mr. Hazard ( appropriate name, don't you think) conveniently doesn't mention is the state of high risk well inspection. Having " the strongest protections regulating oil production in the nation" doesn't mean a thing if the rules can't be unforced. Up to 40% of wells aren't inspected because of regulatory agencies funding issues. Why ? Anyone think the $10 million a year that big oil dumps into Sacramento lobbying has anything to do with it?
Groups like the one Hazard belongs to and Western States Petroleum Association grease their way to big profits with lavish spending and influence peddling at our expense.
Yes on P.

geeber (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 5:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wrong Dan. Energy production is only up because of these safe extraction practices that Measure P would ban. Without these safe extraction methods, we return to the days of energy dependence on countries that want to destroy us.

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 6:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

where's your data supporting "safe extraction practices", Botany?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Agree with MR. Hazzard, California continues to shoot itself in the foot with over regulation. The oil companies play a vital role in supplying revenue and jobs within the state. Oxy is selling their California assets, who's next?

borr7676 (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

so then, the argument that we are not fracking anyways is false? you know, since so much is at stake? Stale ; the technique, the arguments. Can the future arrive please?

spacey (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

much of the fracking is in No. Dakota, where hardly anyone lives and no one apparently gives a frack about what is happening to the groundwater supplies there; Botany, where's your supporting data that "it's safe"?
Not sure what you're talking about, spacey?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First of all Dan. We don't do any fracking here in SB. The proponents are lumping in fracking with steam injection methods which are two completely different methods of extraction. The environazis are trying to pull a fast one here. They are billing it as an anti-fracking measure when what they really want to ban is steam injection extraction.

You should read up on this before issuing a knee-jerk canned liberal response.

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree, Botany. Santa Barbara will never forget the blowout at Platform Holly, and it WAS horrendous, in spite of all the current drilling in the channel.

There's also the theory that oil is abiotic; not a fossil fuel, an inorganic, continuously produced substance.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

STOP this nonsense! Please!

The benefits of reasonably priced, domestically secure, American produced oil outweighs the costs by 1000:1.

Every industry, including solar and wind, produce waste and generate pollution, either in production or operation or both.

The difference is that our economy runs on petroleum. The fastest way to lower our standard of living and hurt the least fortunate among us (ie: the working poor) is to ban oil production.

Of course none of this matters to upper-east and San Roque lib dems who bask in their ego-driven "take action" propaganda campaigns while they ALL drive cars and use products that consume and are made from oil (that includes the horrifically destructive Prius's that require incredibly toxic batteries and are made in factories that belch carbon).

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

'Extremists Block Path to Energy Independence' and the extremists are the oil barons.

spacey (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The PR onslaught of the oil and gas industries is underway and we can expect much more.

For a view by Cornell University's Professor of Engineering Tony Ingraffia, a "pioneer in fracture mechanics," and by Los Alamos Planning Committee Chair Chris Wrather and Santa Ynez Valley water company president Bob Field, please take a look at this half-hour television interview:

William Smithers

bilwil (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vote YES on P!
Thanks for the gov. ref, Botany. As the 42,000 Class II injection oil wells in Calif. inevitably run low on oil, the absolutely tendency will be to move to "fracking" -- I believe Measure P will stop this likelihood. See bilwil's ref., as well.
You know as little about me as you do about drilling, realityWilly88, stuck up there in your narrow little valley. I bike as much as possible, also scorn the out-of-touch so-called lib-dems in San Roque/upperESide, & live happily with my cool neighbors down on the Westside.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't forget Mission Canyon DD. It's our little slice of heaven and we want to keep it that way. Steam injection, no problem!

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2014 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, I've got friends all over Mission Cyn, Puesta del Sol, Glendessary, and it is a slice of heaven there, why should you care about groundwater supplies? Llike those Montecito 1%ers you & your other landlords will always be able to truck in the clean water you need. Let the rest eat cake (I mean, polluted water)!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2014 at 12:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And you say conservatives are the deniers of science. Where's your evidence that cyclic steam injection causes groundwater contamination? I'd be more concerned about the amount of water the process uses during our drought. That's a fact. Your groundwater contamination reference is conjecture with no basis in fact. The amount of water usage is the only issue I would have with it.

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2014 at 6:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)


Cyclic steam extraction has the same or worse potential for water contamination that fracking does, and according to petroleum engineering literature it has a casing failure rate of somewhere between 30 to 50 percent. It also takes place closer to the water table, making it more dangerous than fracking in that regard.

Here is one link you can read to learn more about what I just stated above:

As for whether CSI has contaminated water in the past, see the Cold Lake spill. It's pretty much destroyed an entire lake and engineers have no idea how it happened and how to stop it. The culprit is, like with other CSI spills, the extremely high temperatures of the water used. Here's a link on that:

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2014 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

nitrogen, do you even read the studies you post?

This was a 2008 "modeling" assessment based upon incidents that had occurred between 1992 and 2002 at one drilling site. It was conducted so a solution for this early industrial concern could be found.

Yet you treat this outdated "modeling" study as current operating fact. This study stands for nothing more than a garbage factoid..

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2014 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again nitrogen, did you even read the article about the Cold Lake "spill" which again refutes your claims right in the article itself.

Be sure to visit the Cold Lake tourism website that claims fishing is fine and is a growing tourism location due to its popularity. "Draining the lake" was suggested to locate a possible leak that at best is related to a very old well drilling operation (according to your very own article) and has nothing to do with the Athabaska Sands oil shale recovery project.

Thank you for the links. They provided the exact opposite of what you intended.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2014 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not only that, Nitrogen's first link only directs us to buy the paper. Do you want to buy it for us to read to prove your point?

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2014 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jarvis, the point of the PetroOne article was that they state as a matter of fact that cyclic steaming has a high casing failure rate. Other petroleum engineering literature states the same. As for Cold Lake, again, it's an instance wherein cyclic steam injection caused an unstoppable leak. You asked for evidence that CSI contaminates water. I gave you one peer reviewed piece of petro engineering literature that states that CSI has a high casing failure rate, and one news article referencing one of the most horrendous example of CSI water contamination. You can look up the Kern County CSI spill if you want another example. There are others.

CSI has even caused seeps in Santa Barbara County:

-- "Steam injection in the nearby Pacific Coast Energy Company lease (formerly Breitburn lease), located immediately north of the SME lease, has resulted in oil seeping to the ground surface due to casing leaks, creating surface expressions of oil from the Diatomite formation. (These surface expressions are associated with well mechanical failures.)" (page 212)

-- "Both surface expressions related to mechanical failures (i.e. casing failures, etc.) and seeps are, or could be, related to oil extraction activities at the project site." (page 212)

-- "the frequency of seeps occurring at the site has increased substantially since PCEC has started their steam injection program" (page 212)

-- "….in the event that such seeps/surface expressions of oil occur, the oil could migrate to nearby creeks and drainages, creating potentially significant water quality impacts." (page 213)

Like I said, CSI has just the same risks as fracking. We should stick to conventional drilling methods. All this extreme stuff is a waste of our time.

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2014 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: