Page 2 of 63
Posted on October 14 at 10:34 a.m.
Jayse, it was the oil industry that grossly fouled our beaches and our environment through their carelessness in 1969. That is why oil and gas our regulated here, not due to some over-energetic pro-government types.
The oil industry brought local opposition on themselves.
In that 40 years not once have I heard an oil industry rep say, `We get it. We messed up. It was our mistakes that turned local Santa Barbara people against us. We'll work hard and do better.'
All we get is denial, and finger pointing that somehow those of us who worked our butts off cleaning up the Union Oil mess in 1969 are some sort of wackos.
And very recently Venoco has continually released sulfurous gases into my neighborhood and taken no responsibility. Their attorneys come to APCD meetings and just lie. They've proven to me that our local oil industry is not serious, doesn't really care about jobs or foreign oil imports.
They just want the quickest easiest buck they can get. Venoco brass, by the way, hold a no-bid contract from the state and take $0.83 of every $1.00 of taxpayer assets and pay themselves multimillion $ salaries.
Venoco is a big backer of No on Measure P.
Which means I filled out my ballot already with a Yes on Measure P.
Someday I wish the oil industry would come to their senses and do a first-rate job here. We need local oil. We need the jobs. That we can't get them is entirely the local oil industries fault for acting deplorably around here.
On The Naked Truth
Posted on October 13 at 6:03 p.m.
I don't think our drinking water would be ruined by high-intensity extraction.
However, Hanson is right on target when she says: ``Despite what oil industry spokespeople say, state regulations will not provide necessary protections.''
The oil industry itself argued that inadequate regulation lead to the blowout at Platform A that caused the oil spill in the Santa Barbara Channel in 1969.
So, give the oil industry the regulation it needs, Yes on Measure A.
On Why I Support Measure P
Posted on October 13 at 5:31 p.m.
Yes, when Venoco stinks up our neighborhood and sends their attorneys to the APCD to prevaricate, the reason is: OLD HIPPIES.
When Venoco takes $0.83 per $1.00 from the taxpayer's assets with a no-bid contract and pays their executives $3 million/year with that money, the reason is: OLD HIPPIES.
And when the operators of Platform Holly started reinjection in 1973 and probably caused the Coal Oil Point upwelling, the reason is: OLD HIPPIES.
Union Oil in 1969 installed a substandard casing and caused a giant blowout in our channel. The reason? OLD HIPPIES.
Wow, those OLD HIPPIES are amazingly effective at causing the oil industry to act bad. But it is easy to solve that problem! If we vote Yes on P we remove future opportunities for oil industry to act bad!
A Yes on P defeats the OLD HIPPIES!! Yes on P!
Posted on October 12 at 9:21 p.m.
So why is Venoco, operators of the offshore Platform Holly, spending so much money to oppose Measure P?
Nobody in the oil industry, offshore or onshore, steps up and takes responsibility for the messes they've made around here… the 1969 blowout at Platform A, the long record of sulfurous releases at Platform Holly and the Ellwood Onshore Facility, Greka, etc.
Shows what kind of metal the local oil industry is made of. Shows why a vote of Yes on Measure P makes sense.
Posted on October 12 at 9:55 a.m.
My `feelings' are based on face-to-face meetings with Venoco where they prevaricated repeatedly. Venoco is a major funder of the No on Measure P campaign.
Don't trust them, ever, from my direct experience. Their attorneys fib. They emit lots of Hydrogen Sulfide and other sulfurous compounds into our neighborhoods and deny it.
And the take $0.83 of the value of each $1.00 of public oil and pay themselves multimillion dollar per year salaries.
Not good people, not trustable, and definitely worthy of a vote of Yes on Measure P.
On Who’s Smoking Loco Weed?
Posted on October 10 at 5:57 p.m.
Those of us who lived through the 1969 blowout at Platform A, or who have lived by Platform Holly for many years know: the oil industry is not trustable.
Simple as that. Makes voting for Measure P a very simple decision.
Of course we need oil. Of course we might import more if Santa Barbara County curtails production. Things the oil industry itself should consider prior to deciding to behave reprehensibly at Platform A or Platform Holly.
In a rational world, I'd most likely vote No on P. But the local oil industry has been so irrational and dishonest, I have to vote Yes.
Posted on October 10 at 10:24 a.m.
Once I was in a meeting with a now-retired Santa Barbara County Fire Chief. He said, `you don't pay any property taxes, why should our emergency services be available to you?' He was wrong… actually, in preparation for the meeting, someone from the Assessor's office had looked everything up and corrected him. I knew already because I write the check every year.
I've never really recovered faith in at least our fire safety services after that incident. My suspicion is that the fire services are sometimes withheld based on the judgement of County Fire. Political leanings might well be one criterion used to decide whether or not to withhold or provide services.
A recurring story in Isla Vista: that many calls to the County Fire in Feburary, 1970, when hooligans burned down the Bank of America were intentionally ignored. Those stories were both from residents and someone from the dispatch office who retired to Friendship Manor. One story is that firefighters thought IV had become to dangerous due to the pitched battles with rock-throwing students. Another story is that it was a political decision to let IV burn.
So when I see the firefighters and deputies take sides in a political question like Measure P, I think the most rational response for a plain old taxpayer is to hide all your political leanings. You never know whether or not retribution from the firefighters and deputies is in the cards. We have the illusion of political freedom, but it is merely an illusion.
Posted on October 10 at 6:41 a.m.
The billable hours that Venoco attorneys pay for with public-owned oil dwarf anything charged by the drafters of Measure P.
So funny to read criticism of environmental attorneys. Any misbehavior of environmental attorneys is dwarfed by that of the oil industry attorneys.
It is like a giant 20 story charged black tank calling a tiny little kids-kitchen pot black. Or a giant ogre with a hugh plank in its eye calling out the splinter in the eye of a little elf.
There is one reason the anti-Measure P folks are so virulent: their comfy paychecks depend on the expansion of oil in our County. Like the multimillion $ paychecks of the brass of Venoco, paid for with $0.83 on the dollar of publicly owned oil from the South Ellwood field.
Linda Krop makes enough money to survive. But she's not buying second homes in Aspen or Gstaad.
There have been a few serious arguments against Measure P: Jim Boles is a terrific guy, and I'll always respect Sheriff Thomas. I politely disagree with them, but they could be right.
Posted on October 9 at 6:26 p.m.
Linda Krop makes quite a bit of sense in this article. The jeering from trolls can't overwhelm the simplicity of her arguments.
Sure, lawyers lie. I've been in APCD hearings with lawyers from Venoco and seen it from the front row.
The brass of Venoco gets paid 10 or more times, **FROM PUBLIC ASSETS** what the recent UCSB professor and new Nobel Laureate Shuji Nakamura gets paid. Of course Venoco must send in their lawyers to fabricate and protect their raiding of public dollars.
As for taking risk and improving the world, Nakamura wins over Venoco by a mile.
Posted on October 8 at 1:41 p.m.
If I have a Yes on P sign in my yard will the firefighters refuse to help if my house is on fire, and will the deputies/officers refuse to help if a crime is in progress at my place?
On Dodging Measure P Oil Slicks