Page 2 of 275
Posted on November 4 at 10:36 a.m.
Speaking as a former TA/RA @UCSB, I would have flunked 14noscams.
On Extreme Extraction Danger
Posted on November 4 at 2:02 a.m.
More spurious dot connecting by 14noscams .. in response to:
"polluted wastewater was being injected directly into groundwater supplies used for drinking and agriculture"
14noscams says, "these substances are naturally occurring"
Irrelevant. The oil companies got a hold of wastewater laden with toxins and were injecting it into a groundwater basin. That's all you need to know.
14noscams is just an apologist for companies like Greka.
Posted on November 4 at 1:38 a.m.
That minority committee report is old news.
It was a political hit piece from big oil backers in the Senate. I read it when it first came out ... and landed on numerous right-wing blog sites the next day.
Obviously orchestrated propaganda.
On Measure P Money Creeps Up
Posted on November 3 at 1:38 a.m.
"Do they want to remain dependent on foreign oil? "-- Maria Sanguinetti, San Jose
Maria, who do you think controls this dependence? Do you think the oil companies are keeping as much domestically produced oil in the U.S. as possible? Do you think that after all the cost and pollution of shipping in foreign oil that the oil companies are going to do the right thing and keep the gasoline made from that foreign oil here in the U.S. for you and me?
Nope. They sell it wherever they can make the most money, even if it means shipping to Asia! That's exactly what Chevron is doing right now. Gasoline refined in their Richmond, CA and Gulf Coast refineries is being shipped overseas:
In fact, oil exports have risen steeply and are at their highest levels in over 40 years:
Allowing Chevron and other oil companies to drill using risky methods so they can send the resulting gasoline overseas is *not* worth the sacrificing the safety of our local water and air.
On No on P
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.
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.