Comments by EastBeach

Previous | Page 3 of 275 | Next

Posted on November 2 at 11:44 a.m.

"City of SB gets their water, not from north county, but Cachuma, so what's the issue for them."
-- sensiblemolly

Measure P is a *county* wide initiative. There are plenty of people in Lompoc, Santa Maria, and Santa Ynez who are just as concerned about protecting their water sources from industrial contamination, protecting air quality, and drilling in energy efficient ways.

We can't do anything about Chevron deciding to export gasoline refined from local crude. But we're not going to let them do that at our expense!

On Extreme Extraction Danger

Posted on November 2 at 11:36 a.m.

@sensiblemolly, if as you claim you lived near wells that were "fracked unsuccessfully", that means fracking didn't occur on a long-term basis.

That's a poor citation for your claims.

On Extreme Extraction Danger

Posted on November 2 at 11:20 a.m.

@sensiblemolly, your conclusion is illogical. Just because *your* water basin was not contaminated from fracking doesn't mean the practice is safe (and we know it isn't because fracking has corrupted water basins all across this country).

Your argument is like saying you've never been in an auto accident, therefore driving must be completely safe. The auto insurance companies must be using scare tactics to stop driving! Vote NO on auto insurance!

On Extreme Extraction Danger

Posted on October 31 at 1:25 p.m.

Here's a link to the article LindaSo quoted:

It's plainly obvious many of the dirty tricks Berman and his oil company clients have hatched are being used by the No on P campaign.

Clearer head will prevail. Yes on P.

On What Really Matters About Measure P

Posted on October 31 at 11:41 a.m.

A well thought out letter.

Don't let Chevron's ad campaign fool you. They don't care a rat's bee-hind about dependence on foreign oil. They don't care whether the gas you put in your tank comes from here or abroad. The bottom line is what makes the most profit for them.

If locally-drilled crude makes the most money by being refined in California and exported (profit is based on the "crack spread"), then that gas will never make it to your tank.

Chevron is a vertical oil company so they do both drilling and refining. Refining is a big source of profit for them:

But guess what? They export their gasoline (e.g. refined in Richmond, CA) when it's more profitable than selling in California! Even if the crude was shipped in from Saudi Arabia!

The oil industry will drill and refine and ship to hit their revenue targets - even if it's done in the most environmentally damaging way (i.e. cyclic steaming, hauling long distances using diesel tankers) and even if it increases our dependence on foreign oil.

That "teacher of the year" and that geologist in the glossy No on P ads are sooo wrong.

On What Really Matters About Measure P

Posted on October 29 at 12:22 p.m.

"What is the most ridiculous argument is that Measure P would somehow lessen our dependence on OIL."
-- Friendofoil

Give us a link to where this was stated.

Otherwise we don't know whether you (or your handlers) are just trying to change the subject through misdirection, false claims, and/or misquoting others.

On Most Ridiculous Argument Yet

Posted on October 29 at 12:10 p.m.

The author is absolutely correct. The oil companies are selling oil to other countries drilled on the pretense of use here at home.

US oil exports have risen steeply in the last 10 years. That's because demand in the U.S. has been dropping. Also because domestic production is at its highest level in the last 50 years!

The result is oil drilled in the U.S. is increasingly being exported because the oil companies want to maintain market share. It's all over the news these days. Here's the latest EIA data:

The No on P campaign is completely dishonest when they raise the spectre of more oil tankers coming from the Middle East if Measure P passes.

On Most Ridiculous Argument Yet

Posted on October 26 at 1:17 p.m.

Abiotic oil is pure fiction. And even if a geological process existed for generating oil at near replacement rates from non-carbon sources, then why are oil companies using expensive and energy-intensive methods like cyclic steaming to extract oil right now?

I called nuff on abiotic oil months ago and he's still drinking the Koolaid. And huffing the fumes.

On Why I’m Voting Yes on Measure P

Posted on October 26 at 1:04 p.m.

As they say in Montecito ... "It takes green to stay green".

On Runner-up to the city's "Gold is the new green" slogan?

Posted on October 23 at 11:29 p.m.

Dr. Luyendyk is correct. The oil companies are lying straight to our faces when they tell us we need to drill right here, right now to reduce oil imports.

It's really all about market expansion and increasing earnings per share.

If they really cared about dependence on foreign oil like they say over and over in their ads, they wouldn't be exporting so much of it right now, and fighting against current regulations to export even more.

On Measure P: Can We See the Future Without It?

Previous | Page 3 of 275 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: