Measure P Preserves and Protects

Monday, July 21, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Measure P bans specific, risky oil extraction techniques — fracking, acidizing, and steam injection — in Santa Barbara County used in new projects. I volunteered on this important initiative because I grew up in Lompoc where test wells may be drilled through the aquifer by Freeport McMoran, which has a terrible environmental record. I am raising my family in Carpinteria, a beautiful beach town that needs to be preserved and protected, not fracked and acidized.

Over 400 communities across the United States have already banned fracking because of the extreme risks, including Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, and Santa Cruz. Vintners in France helped ban fracking in that entire country.

What I don’t look forward to is the oil industry–funded flood of TV ads, radio ads, mailers, and robocalls. Their false propaganda will say that fracking is regulated, that these techniques are completely safe, that they don’t really use water, that it’s not happening, that we’re wackos trying to ban all oil, that it will cost thousands of jobs, cause total economic ruin, destroy schools, and deprive the entire nation of energy.

As you can imagine, I beg to differ.

Outside oil companies are already pouring money into our county and will try every trick in the book to convince voters that Measure P is unnecessary.

Measure P is our only chance to safeguard this beautiful and bountiful place. If it fails, a new oil boom is coming, and it won’t be pretty.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

While wholeheartedly supporting Measure P , I sometimes feel like our movement is sitting on the wrong side of the tree limb with a saw. Limiting supply without a commensurate effort at reducing demand makes no sense to me. Energy conservation must be a top priority and is an area where we can all participate.

geeber (anonymous profile)
July 21, 2014 at 1:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for this important letter, Ms. Claassen, and expect realitycheckWilly88 to respond soon (likely he has oil development on his ranch up there in SYV). I do agree geeber, and it's the same with water conservation/usage. I am personally trying hard to limit my energy demands, hey, and it saves money, too.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
July 21, 2014 at 2:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What the *&^* is THIS Dr. Dan? You complain about Dewdly calling you a woman, then you call billclausen a woman too...oh wait, different spelling, different person. Sorry.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
July 21, 2014 at 6:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

no, I was honored he compared me a gal, remember?!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
July 21, 2014 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good on Rebecca. The oil industry has thus far proven to be as deceitful as ever with this campaign.

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
July 21, 2014 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding No on Measure P. Iit should be a NO vote..This would be taking away all rights to produce more oil. tell me, what else do you have to replace it? What makes the anti-oilers think they know more than the professors that teach the new technology for extracting oil. Water concerns have been discussed over and over. It is as thou the WG, ex-350, people need to have an issue to debate. They change their name to play on the drought conditions. Stop and think about how you are helping to make this a socialized country, not so different from communism. I question the legality of the initiative. Stop and think about the outcome if this passes. Do they have the $ for court costs? What will you do when we get the 100 yr rain which is expected? Technology is where it is at. You will always have accidents, but you can not live in fear that you will have an accident. VOTE NO ON P BECAUSE IT ISN'T A SENSIBLE SOLUTION.

sensiblemolly (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2014 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes on Measure P.

The misinformation is starting. FACT; The measure does NOT stop current oil production, and it does not stop conventional oil production in the future.

What it DOES is prevent- in particular; dangerous oil production EXPANSION- It would prevent methods such as cyclic steam injection, currently used in Santa Maria, (with plans for 7700 more wells using this method if we don't pass Measure P) and it would prevent acidation as well as fracking which has been used here in the past, is being used on borders now, and could very well be used in our county again if we don't stipulate it not be.

Yes on Measure P is the only sensible approach to industries who want to drill thousands more wells in our home county, using techniques which have proven unsafe to water and air and health elsewhere.To ignore facts is unwise, and unfair to our families.

We have a moral obligation to protect ourselves and our families from known threats , especially from threats to our most basic precious resources that are the foundation of all of our health. Without clean safe water and air everything else is meaningless. This goes way beyond party lines. Right Left, Center or otherwise, it's the patriotic, and right thing to do.

We can -- hold steady where we are, stick with conventional drilling where we must while we ramp up on and invest more in clean renewables, conserve, and slowly and sensibly transition to a sustainable energy grid.

morgainele (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2014 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The water guardians have determined conclusively that cyclic steaming, acidizing, and (of course) fracking are dangerous and 'extreme'. Expertise is implied when one makes such a hazard assessment. The DOGGR, EPA, and USGS are not as sure about all this as you.

You water guardians must really be something.. . eh?

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
July 23, 2014 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

7700 new wells!!! Do you know how many years it has taken to get the 100 new wells approved? Your grandchildren will be gone by the time this ever happened, if it ever did. I don't believe it for a second this will ever happen. . By then hopefully "morgainele" will see an alternative energy which the special interest groups keep stopping with thier concerns. By the way, have you seen the plans for all these new wells or do you suppose it is just talk that there COULD be that many wells on this isolated area that has been an oil field for over 100 years and has won the State award for being modern and beautiful.

sensiblemolly (anonymous profile)
July 24, 2014 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good point Sensiblemolly. SME has been trying to permit 125 wells for about 6 years now. Still no permit, and no end in site.

Without Measure P it will take (forever) to permit 7700 wells. With Measure P it would take longer

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
July 25, 2014 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And how does keeping water clean turn a country into a socialist country or communist country? Absolutely absurd statement.

Do you consider government subsidies socialist? If you do, then the US is already socialist, because subsidies to oil companies costs taxpayers billions of dollars. More to the oil industry than any other industry.

"As of July 2014, Oil Change International estimates the total value of U.S. subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at $37.5 billion annually, including international finance. This does not include military, health, climate, or local pollution costs. These subsidies have increased dramatically as U.S. oil and gas production has increased."

tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 25, 2014 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fossil-fuel consumers worldwide received about six times more government subsidies than were given to the renewable-energy industry, according to the chief adviser to oil-importing nations.

State spending to cut retail prices of gasoline, coal and natural gas rose 36 percent to $409 billion as global energy costs increased, the Paris-based International Energy Agency said today in its World Energy Outlook. Aid for biofuels, wind power and solar energy, rose 10 percent to $66 billion.

While fossil fuels meet about 80 percent of world energy demand, its subsidies are “creating market distortions that encourage wasteful consumption,” the agency said. “The costs of subsidies to fossil fuels generally outweigh the benefits.”

Thus, I would guess that the oil industry is far more socialist/communist than the renewable energy industry - if one can use that half-baked logic.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 25, 2014 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The federal government spent $24 billion on energy subsidies in 2011, with the vast majority going to renewable energy sources, according to a government report.

BILLION OF THE FEDERAL SUPPORT, according to the Congressional Budget Office,


That's not including the approx. $100 billion UN AGW-scam. And Al Gore et al will be paid in carbon credits to stop production at his 20 oil wells in the gulf.

Don't lag on the hype-n-jive, tabatha; you don't want to lose your job.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
July 25, 2014 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Germany stopped subsidizing solar projects in 2014 due to cost.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
July 25, 2014 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

that's not quite correct, 14no, they have reduced them, but have kept power fee rebates and simply slowed the amount they give back:
Germany will shut off all the rest of their aging nuclear reactors by 2022, and aims for 80% renewable energy by 2050 [they're at 25% now which is fantastic and BEGGARS our renewable energy sources].

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
July 25, 2014 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets say you are right DavyBrown, that Germany has 25 percent renewable power in their mix. The problem is, their expensive power has made Germany uncompetitive for manufacturing.

The US on the other hand has the cheapest, cleanest power in the world thanks to fracking. We are the number 1 gas producer and will be the number 1 oil producer by next year. So manufacturing is moving back to the US because energy is so comparatively cheap. Not bad eh? Shouldnt we all be glad?

Fracking has netted us $1,200 per household per year, growing to $3,500 by 2025. The increase came to every household including 'water guardian' households. The water guardians will of course want to give that back to the evil oil companies

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
July 26, 2014 at 1:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Germany is extremely competitive in manufacturing! Siemens, Bosch, BMW, Mercedes... after China, German exports more ($ profit) than any other country on earth. I know BMW management types, they cannot mfg. enough Beamers to sell to the Chinese. No, your argument falls apart, but nice try.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
July 26, 2014 at 2:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

14noscams - that was a quote from Bloomberg about global energy subsidies. As for the US, look at the history (this is a quote from the link provided below, in case you miss it. Also note that all of the quotes in the link are also sourced. I could not include all bullet points, they are in the next post.)


All energy production in the U.S. receives significant federal support, dating back to the first oil subsidies in early 20th century. Here are the facts on energy subsidies:

In cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, the oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in U.S. government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments. (DBL Investors,

The federal government has subsidized traditional energy technologies for more than 60 years before supporting renewable energy. A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes: “From 1916 to the 1970s, federal energy-related tax policy focused almost exclusively on increasing the production of domestic oil and natural gas; there were no tax incentives for promoting renewable energy or increasing energy efficiency.” (Source: CBO,

Tax preferences for traditional energy outweighed those for renewable energy through 2007. “[T]ax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, typically accounting for more than two-thirds of the total cost.” (Source: CBO,

Renewable energy investments are working. The cost of renewable energy has dropped dramatically since the 1970s, with the greatest improvements occurring in the past 5-10 years. The average price of a solar panel has declined by 47% since the beginning of 2011. Wind energy has fallen over 90% since incentives for wind began in the 1980s, and attracted an average annual private investment of $15 billion for the past five years. (Sources: Solar Energy Industries Association,; American Wind Energy Association,

So try facts before ridicule; but it is probably too much work.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 26, 2014 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To put this in perspective, consider a recent, comprehensive study from venture capital firm DBL Investors that found that the “federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidy’s life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.” (DBL Investors,

According to a 2012 study from the Worldwatch Institute (WWI), global energy subsidies total between $775 billion and more than $1 trillion in 2012, while renewables clocked in at around $66 billion in 2010. (WWI,

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial repeated a common line in the discussion on energy subsidies: “Why not eliminate all federal energy subsidies?” To do this, the government would need to eliminate approximately $111 billion over the next ten years in traditional energy subsidies, on top of eliminating provisions for renewable energy. (Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

A 2011 Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that 74% of Americans support “eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries” in order to “reduce the current federal budget deficit.” (Source: Wall Street Journal,

By contrast, the 2012 United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection poll found that “almost two-thirds—64 percent—of those surveyed said that Congress should extend federal tax credits that encourage production of alternative-energy sources.” (Source: National Journal,

tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 26, 2014 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

as Tabatha totally shut down 14noscams, here's support for DB vs. nuffalready and 14 again: " Exports in Germany averaged 26519.30 EUR Million from 1950 until 2014, reaching an all time high of 99117.97 EUR Million in October of 2013"
Try having some actual facts and real webrefs, guys.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
July 26, 2014 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DavyBrown: That's not quite correct. They're reduced rebates by 80% so far, and are giving power price rebates only to industrial companies. There's nothing in your link or my search about "slowing the amount they give back", and I don't understand the concept, but the Guardian says the German government has stated it's trying to slow the growth of the solar industry.
"Environmentalists, renewable energy experts and industry representatives have expressed incredulity at the 30% cut from 9 March, following earlier cuts of up to 50% over the past three years. They said it was a huge blow for the fledgling industry and a contradiction in terms for a country planning to phase out nuclear power.

"This plan amounts to nothing less than a solar phase-out law," said David Wedepohl, spokesman for the German Solar Industry Association, which represents 800 solar companies. "Under these circumstances there's no way that the transition of the energy industry can be successful. It's also putting tens of thousands of jobs at risk, and it's tough both on investors and on citizens who want to be part of the energy transformation."

14noscams (anonymous profile)
July 26, 2014 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tabatha: Renewable energy is subsidized at 25x the subsidy on oil-related energy per energy unit produced by each. (I've done enough research on oil to know it's most likely not a fossil fuel, but a continually produced, renewable fuel.) Coal is a fossil fuel, and is located very close to the earth's surface, where fossiled plants and animals are located, not a mile or so underground, for one thing.
Oil-based fuels constitute > 80% of the world's energy supply, and green sources around 5%, so comparison of subsidies on a dollar/dollar basis isn't a comparison of energy subsidies. BTU's (or other units of energy) is the relevant comparison. If subsidies were equal, oil subsidies would be 160x green subsidies. Currently, renewables are subsidized at 3x the rate of oil-based fuels.
Renewable subsidies v oil subsidies aren't comarable on an additional basis: green subsidies are paid to producers, oil subsidies are paid to consumers as price reductions.

Also, comparing subsidies on renewables v oil subsidies isn't a valid comparison, since the US is paying around $100 billion/year under the UN's program to transfer assets from the US to UN-sponsored NGO's contracted to build infrastructures in developing nations. The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with regulations on carbon at the local, national, regional or global level; indirect regulation through increased pollution controls, constraints on water usage, or policies targeting health concerns; and mandates on renewable energy adoption and efficiency standards, costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.5 trillion Washington is currently spending. Compliance with these regulations is a cost of doing business for oil producers, offsetting rebates and tax credits.

Public opinion polls are meaningless and a distraction; the opinions of people ignorant on this issue is as relevant as their opinion on the minimum runway length required to land a 747 at STP, as DrDan has demonstrated in support of your invalid comparison. Perception manipulation through publishing results of public opinion polls is a marketing technique used to sell policies the public wouldn't endorse if they were represented honestly; a cheap trick.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
July 26, 2014 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rebecca if you are so concerned about oil, why do you live on an oil seep? Did you study natural oil seeps in earth science?? Is your daughter safe around natural occurring oil seeps, straight from mother earth?

nativegeo (anonymous profile)
August 9, 2014 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: