Page 3 of 276
Posted on November 3 at 1:16 a.m.
Daniel Botkin is another two-bit climate change denier who's been promoting himself and inflating his academic background:
If Botkin had anything worth saying to the scientific community, he wouldn't be publishing in a travel website!
Meanwhile, the IPCC just issued another blunt warning about man-caused global warming:
Voting Yes on P will help reduce excess carbon emissions produced by oil drilling using cyclic steaming.
On No Shame in Changing Your Mind, <em>Indy</em>
Posted on November 3 at 12:53 a.m.
According to Bole's CV, he's worked for the following oil and oil services companies:
ARCO, Texaco, Phillips, Chevron, Exxon, Shell, AERA, Sohio, Amoco,Mobil, City Service, Occidental, Koch Exploration, Benton Oil and Gas, Dames and Moore, Schlumberger, EDKO, Venoco, ERG, Hess, Anadarko, Murphy oil and Gas, Signal Hill Petroleum.
Prof. Bruce Luyendyk is a much more objective expert.
On Ballot Review by Concerned Taxpayers
Posted on November 2 at 12:43 p.m.
Thanks to Ethan, Nick, and Jean for their letter.
Ethan has covered many important issues related to the environment for the Indy. And Nick is more level-headed than his canine alter-ego sometimes leads casual readers to believe. I place more weight on their letter than any influence the publisher or a committee may have had on the Indy's published endorsement.
On An Anti-Endorsement
Posted on November 2 at 12:32 p.m.
0. Who is Carolee?
1. And I say we keep it that way by passing Measure P. As reported by the Indy, there are thousands of potential *new* well sites in the county as oil companies rush to exploit the Monterey Shale in our area. When it becomes economically feasible, the oil companies will use any means to get that oil out. Even if it puts local water resources, air quality, and carbon emissions at risk.
2. Acidization for drilling and well maintenance are two completely different things. Huge amounts of hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids plus helper chemicals are required to make the shale porous enough to pump from. Fracture acidizing takes this one step further and does it under pressure which increases the probability of well casing failure. With a large increase in wells coming online with techniques like this, the probability for casing failures and water basin contamination will also increase.
3. Cyclic steaming has three problems. The first is the well casing is under pressure which increases chances for casing leakage. The second is it uses large amounts of water. Sometimes that water is recovered from drilling. But (according to a recent Indy article) that water is sometimes groundwater or wastewater that can be used for irrigation. The third is carbon emissions. That water has to be heated on-site to 500F using generators.
4. Sometimes. See 3 above.
6. You'd rather have had Barry Cappello do it? Many initiatives are written with support from legal firms .. so that they will be legal! Duh. There are plenty of initiatives that fit your political leanings and have been written by law firms, but we never see you complain about them!
Summary ... you increase the number of wells, and increase use of non-conventional drilling methods .. you increase the odds of problems (cited above). Simple as that.
On Extreme Extraction Danger
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!
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.
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!
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.
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