With Election Day just weeks away, the oil and gas industry has gone all in on its campaign to defeat Measure G—the citizen ballot measure to ban fracking and expanded oil drilling in San Luis Obispo County—dumping $4.7 million into its coffers and spending more than $1.6 million on the effort since July 1.
The recent infusion of cash came courtesy of a $4 million contribution from Chevron Corporation on July 11 and a $675,000 donation from Aera Energy, a subsidiary of ExxonMobil, on Sept. 24, according to Sept. 22 campaign finance filings. The two oil firms join California Resources Corporation and Sentinel Peak Resources, the Arroyo Grande oil field operator, in the fundraising battle.
Between the four, their contributions to the opposition total $5.4 million.
Chevron has some active oil wells in SLO County in the Midway Sunset oil field at the Kern County border, as well as several land holdings throughout the county.
“We exercise our fundamental right and responsibility to advocate positions on policies that can affect the company’s ability to explore for and produce energy. We do so consistent with U.S. laws and Chevron policies,” Chevron spokesman Sean Comey told New Times in an email.
The No on Measure G committee had spent $2.2 million of its dollars as of the Sept. 22 filing. One chief beneficiary is SLO County 1st District Supervisor John Peschong and his consulting company, Meridian Pacific Inc. The Sacramento-based firm with an office in Templeton has received up to $329,000 in payments thus far for Measure G campaign services. Other major recipients of funding include Santa Monica-based Winner and Mandabach Campaigns and Sacramento-based law firm Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLC.
The war chest against Measure G far exceeds that of its proponents. The Yes on Measure G campaign raised $78,630 from 156 donors between July 1 and Sept. 22, while it spent $75,297. In all, the measure has received more “non-monetary” support ($92,854) than it has cash donations ($91,100)—including in-kind legal services from the Center for Biological Diversity, whose staff is backing the measure.
“Our fundraising has really picked up,” said Charles Varni, co-chair for the Yes on G campaign. “We have been, from the beginning, a grassroots organization, and ultimately that’s how we’re going to win this. … We’re facing a multi-million dollar propaganda campaign by Big Oil.”
Among local politicians and political groups, the battle lines over Measure G are drawn. Progressive leaders like SLO Mayor Heidi Harmon and Assembly candidate Bill Ostrander, and groups like the SLO Democratic Party and Sierra Club have endorsed the measure. Conservatives like County Assessor Tom Bordonaro Jr. and 5th District Supervisor Debbie Arnold, as well as the Republican Party and the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture, and Business (COLAB) of SLO County are in opposition.
As the Nov. 6 election grows near, campaign rhetoric on Measure G abounds. Mailers for the “No” campaign are hitting doors, claiming that the measure “simply goes too far.” Opponents warn that it would result in an oil industry shutdown—more than 200 lost jobs, millions of dollars lost in economic activity, and $2 million lost in tax revenue.
“Measure G is poorly written and deceptive,” said Matt Cunningham, spokesman for the No on G campaign. “Its practical effect would be to prohibit well maintenance needed for ongoing oil and gas operations, thus resulting in shutdown.”
An official SLO County economic impact statement assesses that Measure G does allow existing oil operations to continue, “as long as they are not expanded or intensified.” It states that as production from existing wells declines, the $2.3 million in 2017-18 tax revenue from the industry and between 32 and 76 local oil-related jobs may be affected.
Varni called claims of a total oil shutdown “lies,” and added that Measure G allows for routine maintenance of active oil wells. He said the measure is “all about prevention” for fracking and expanded oil production that could impact groundwater resources.
“Measure G is strong in the county,” he said. “Whether it’s strong enough to weather this massive onslaught of media and advertising and propaganda, we’ll see.”
Correction (Oct. 4, 10:35 a.m.): This article has been edited to reflect that Chevron Corporation does produce oil in San Luis Obispo County at the Midway Sunset oil field. Δ
This article appears in Awareness Issue 2018.
I called Tom Bordonaro a couple days ago to ask him to back up his statement that the measure would “ban routine maintenance on existing wells” and “completely shut down all existing production”. He couldn’t do it on the phone, but said he would “get back to me” with supporting information. I made the same request to 6 Cal Poly faculty members who are listed as NO on G coalition members. As of today, crickets. The reason they don’t respond is because they can’t. Measure G clearly bans well stimulation treatment activities such as fracking but it just as clearly excludes routine maintenance from that ban. Quoting the language of the measure: “(Banned) well stimulation treatments do not include steam flooding, water flooding, or cyclic steaming and do not include routine well cleanout work, routine well maintenance, routine removal of formation damage due to drilling, bottom hole pressure surveys, or routine activities that do not affect the integrity of the well or the formation”. What is even more interesting about this concern about “routine well maintenance” is that it is rarely needed. I checked the Dept. of Oil and Gas (DOGGR) online database and also confirmed with a phone call. There has been NO reported “routine maintenance” (as defined by DOGGR and Measure G) on any oil well in San Luis Obispo County since 2015! Yet they have been successfully extracting thousands of barrels of oil over that time period. Makes me wonder if Bordonaro and others have even read the Measure themselves.
NOW, I wonder what Chevron has up their BIG OIL Sleeve?
Interesting the Bureau of Land Management has announced it may open-up FRACKING on public lands in SLO county at the same time CHEVRON invests in fighting any Ban on Fracking on county land…
I’M VOTING YES ON G (voting YES means YES to
Ban Fracking and Protect our Water). BIG OIL is spending MILLIONS to TELL you HOW to VOTE.
I can answer the question for you.
There are two facts in an oil field. First, production declines. Second, wells must be re-drilled (they don’t last forever). Replacing old wells is considered routine maintenance of an oil field.
Measure G says NO new drilling, therefore it is blocking the operating company from performing routine maintenance.
A side note, I can guarantee you that maintenance has been done in the Arroyo Grande Oil Field. I spent a few minutes on the DOGGR well finder and was able to find multiple instances of well maintenance. You may just have to look a little harder.
I’m curious which PAID line items on the NO folks Financial Disclosure (see link) are paid to Voice of Reason… Just like I wonder what else Chevron has up their BIG OIL sleeve…
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/stop…
I’m getting paid as much as you are…
Saw the ad against Measure G too. Wondered what they were talking about? They keep saying they arent fracking so why are they afraid of a ban on Fracking?
Halliburton invented fracking in cahoots with the US government and Union Carbide who operated the nuclear material division of Oak Ridge National Lab in Tennessee. Together they concocted an injection method that disposed of billions and billions of gallons of radioactive waste from the post WWII atomic energy program into the subterranean soil followed by a slurry of cement that was suppose to render the toxic waste impermeable and safe for a million years or forever whichever came first. This lie has been in effect for over 50 years.
Forever turned into 25 years and radioactive waste started showing up in rivers and streams and ground water all over Tennessee. So technically fracking is about injection not extraction. And it has been shown that our subterranean soil is already fracked up. Could say it leaks like a sieve with all the fissures and fault lines crisscrossing and meandering all over our backyard.
AGOF has been illegally dumping on average 37,000,000 gallons of toxic radioactive waste water a month for 10 years into the unincorporated areas of SLO County. And technically that is the definition of Fracking. They can say they aren’t fracking but we know from past history saying it isn’t true doesn’t make it true.
So this mnage a trois devised an out of sight out of mind disposal process that went undetected for years. Discovery proved that ‘fracking ‘ was a totally inaccurate, fictitious and fatally flawed process which necessitated Federal Codes to protect air, water and soil that cant be changed by executive order.
To date the economic impact of violations to the dumping of toxic waste at the 11 injection wells cited by the EPA as not in compliance with Federal codes is $163,350,000 in penalties.
Our Board of Supervisors has failed to enforce the shut down of the offending oil wells and collect the penalties which would look pretty darn good in our county coffers right about now. So at this point Sentinel is costing us far more than their tax revenue is paying.
And please offering jobs no one wants is not an offer. Those jobs are not union and industry does not offer health insurance. County picks up all accident claims and it is a very dangerous and accident-prone industry. By investing in oil we are divesting ourselves from a solar industry that is safer, more profitable and employs more people that will be around to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
And another disingenuous fiction is Sentinel calling themselves local gas and oil producers. They are not local. They are a foreign entity and a very very bad tenant that does not care about fugitive releases of hydrogen sulfide and a flair tower that will be burning and emitting suffocating toxic fumes 24/ 7 into our back yard.
While the world is wising up to the unscrupulous antics and tactics of a deranged, noxious, blood sucking industry and banishing it from the face of the earth we are having this conversation with an industry that doesnt give two hoots or a holler about this place we call home and they call a toxic waste dump. The oil field has absolutely nothing to do with supplying local farmers or residents with oil and gas. The crude extracted is asphalt grade.
When they leave in 10 years are they going to take that cesspool of toxic radioactive waste with them? Hell no. That is what fracking is all about. Dump toxic waste in backyards without so much as a mother may I and then high tail it out of town leaving the community with nothing but grief, worry and constant uncertainty of the harmful contaminates and lethal by products that will eventually surface and destroy our lives and livelihoods for generations to come.
But Sentinel you have nothing to worry about because you arent Fracking.
Or are you? Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
I think they are more concerned about the second part that says NO new drilling. If this was a fracking only ban there may be a lot less fight.
Can you provide evidence of this? I’d guess the people that do work there and provide for their families would beg to differ…
“And please offering jobs no one wants is not an offer. Those jobs are not union and industry does not offer health insurance. County picks up all accident claims and it is a very dangerous and accident-prone industry.”
Voice of Reason, I need facts, not opinion. What authority considers well replacement as routine maintenance? Where does Measure G say “No new wells”? As to maintenance, the routine maintenance that requires reporting is found in the database at https://secure.conservation.ca.gov/WellMai…
Nothing shows up in SLO County. Granted, there is maintenance done to the wellhead and pumps, but those are not required to be reported. I could not find anything in the database that reports replacement wells. Send me a link if you can find it.
Barry you must not be looking too hard.
“Drilling new petroleum exploration or development wells is an expansion and an intensification of petroleum extraction prohibited by this Initiative”. Translation, NO new wells.
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/getattachment…
Doubled down by the proponents of the measure:
“Our goal is to protect San Luis Obispo County … through the promotion of renewable energy and the PROHIBITION OF ANY NEW OIL WELLS or fracking in the county’s unincorporated areas.”
I found multiple instances where maintenance was done and reported. Again, you just have to look harder… Here’s one to get you started. Proof
While we are still engaging in this conversation, maybe you can shed some light on one of the questions I had. If this measure passes, is it even legal under the constitution? Ballotpedia has a hilarious line that states “The legality of the measure is uncertain.” It goes on to say that there will likely be litigation if it passes. Who pays for all of that? As a tax payer, I would certainly prefer not to…
https://ballotpedia.org/San_Luis_Obispo_Co…
Here’s the proof:
https://secure.conservation.ca.gov/WellRec…
We must ban fracking!
We must maintain the illusion that the constant wars in the Middle East have been for oil.
If people start to realize the wars have actually been for Israel’s benefit then Israel might lost control of the USA!
Voice, I appreciate the fact that you have actually read Measure G! I think a lot of people will be making their decisions based on what other people tell them. I can see you are not one of them. The sections on Measure G that talk about the prohibition of new oil wells is based on the premise that new drilling would violate the stipulation that current well production operations may continue, but that “Such uses shall not be enlarged, increased, extended, or otherwise expanded or intensified.” If I were an oil company, I think I could successfully argue that replacing a damaged or non-performing well is not in violation of any of these points… especially if, as you said earlier, well replacement is recognized in the industry as “routine maintenance”. Measure G is quite specific about protecting current oil production activities “This Initiative does not prohibit routine maintenance of existing petroleum extraction operations, wastewater disposal, or the exercise of any vested right.” That said, how many replacement wells have been drilled in the the past 3 or 4 years? If you know anything about oil field work, when an oil well ceases to perform as desired, the most expensive solution is to abandon and replace. The well can be acid washed. pressure treated, or reworked to restore its production capacity. Measure G does not prohibit those activities. The practice of replacing an underperforming well with a new one is a last resort and is seldom used.
As to maintenance activities, I was referring to those maintenance activities that are required to be reported on the DOGGR Maintenance database referenced earlier. Those activities are limited to pressure treating and/or acid washing a well to restore production. Apparently, reworking a well (per the example you referenced) is reported differently.
As to legality, you are correct, Measure G can and will be challenged in the courts. If the oil companies fail to defeat Measure G after spending over $5 million on the NO on G campaign, you can bet they will be willing to spend as much or more to defeat or weaken it in the courts. I wish taxpayer money didn’t have to be used to fight the oil companies, but it is all a matter of being willing to protect what we think is of value to us.
All politics aside, do you drive a car that runs on gas or diesel? Do you want to continue driving that car? Then you may want to have gasoline to fuel the engine and oil to lubricate it. How do we get those products……Just saying.
Gary, I drive a Nissan Leaf electric car for most of my travel. I do use gas and diesel for longer trips, but what is your point? Measure G does not have any impact on existing oil production in SLO County. By the time it runs out in 2045, I doubt if many of us will be driving internal combustion engine cars anyway.
Barry, I appreciate your cordial response! It’s refreshing to have some honest to goodness debate and discussion.
I think the issue I would have as an operator the the Arroyo Grande Oil Field is that Measure G seems so specific about no new drilling. Making the argument that replacement wells are ok, and replacement wells being ok are two very different things. Additionally, to me, the amount of regulation around general oil field activities puts a lot of restrictions on the options the operator has at their disposal to keep wells productive.
What I am more curious about is, what are you trying to protect? If you are along the lines of the measure, you want to protect water. If that’s true, then wouldn’t the Aquifer Exemption be satisfactory in validating that there is not a concern for drinking water contamination? Also, did you know that a large portion of the Arroyo Grande Oil Field is already exempted? The application that DOGGR has given to the EPA is simply for an expansion of the EXISTING Aquifer Exemption boundary. I was able to attend the workshop hosted by the EPA. Despite the negative remarks given by the Coalition, I found the workshop to be quite informative regarding the producing area and risks (or lack there of) of producing at the Arroyo Grande Oil Field.
In regards to Gary and your exchange, the oil produced at Arroyo Grande goes up to northern CA (it either goes north or south, as there are two main refineries in the state). The crude is then processed into a variety of products including gasoline, jet fuel, asphalt, plastics (literally used for everything), and many other petroleum based products. While you do drive an electric car, I hope you understand that a large portion of that power comes from petroleum based sources. Additionally, CA happens to import 57% of the 2,000,000 barrels of oil a day that it consumes. Limiting the production at Arroyo Grande only galvanizes foreign imports from Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, Colombia, Iraq, etc. https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/petroleu…
Voice, I appreciate a well reasoned debate, as well. Let’s continue!
You said “Making the argument that replacement wells are ok, and replacement wells being ok are two very different things.” Agreed. I have asked Charles Varni which agency will be doing the enforcement of Measure G if it passes. He has not replied yet. It may be good to get a reading from the enforcement entity to see what their take is. That said, replacement wells may be a gray area, but I am not convinced that this is a significant issue, given that, as I said earlier, they are the most expensive option when dealing with a well that is not performing.
You said “Additionally, to me, the amount of regulation around general oil field activities puts a lot of restrictions on the options the operator has at their disposal to keep wells productive.” I am not sure what you mean by that. Are you talking about current DOGGR restrictions or Measure G restrictions? Measure G restrictions are twofold: 1) No enlargement, expansion, extension, increase or intensification of use and 2) No well stimulation treatment. That’s it. As I said before, there is no restriction on routine maintenance, which includes acid and/or pressure treatments, two methods of restoring well capacity which can be used but apparently haven’t been needed in the last 4 years. I just don’t see how operators are going to be “restricted” if they haven’t even been using the maintenance techniques available to them and will continue to be available to them under Measure G.
You said “What I am more curious about is, what are you trying to protect?” Great question! Measure G lists 21 “Findings” that are reasons for supporting the measure. Frankly, I have not researched every one of those and the water quality issue is one of those that I know little about. I do tend to trust the analyses that my friends on the Measure G committee have made, but I cannot personally engage on that issue with any degree of competency. What I do have competency in and am passionate about, are findings 9, 10, 13, 19, and 20. They are my primary reason for supporting Measure G.
I am also trying to protect the democratic process, which, if it is to be successful, must be energized by rational debate, accurate information, and pursuit of the greatest good. It really bothers me when I see misleading or untruthful statements being presented as fact. And so I try my best to discern error and correct it where I can.
Finally, your statement “I hope you understand that a large portion of that power comes from petroleum based sources ” is one of those errors. PG&E is our power provider. They recently reported that “About 80 percent of the electricity we deliver is a combination of renewable and greenhouse gas-free resources” (from their website)
Thanks again for the affirmation of my cordial response. The feeling is mutual.
Sorry it took me a while to respond, and you may not even see this, but I’ll post anyways.
I believe I can respond to the majority of your points in one line of logic. It’s something that I just can’t really get past in the “no expansion” piece of this and it directly addresses all of the findings that you are most passionate about. What you are saying is that by limiting the expansion of the Arroyo Grande Oil Field, you are helping the environment and making SLO “green”. This is what doesn’t make sense to me. Producing oil and using petroleum products are two VERY different things. If your goal is to make SLO more environmentally conscious, then the goal should be to do just that. Stopping or limiting oil production does not result in citizens of SLO using less petroleum products. The ONLY thing it does is limit the amount of jobs and tax contributions, while increasing California’s dependence on foreign oil.
See, from my point of view, this is a simple supply and demand issue. In my opinion, Measure G limits and ultimately eliminates the SUPPLY of oil from the Arroyo Grande field. If you want to make SLO more environmentally conscious, the focus should be on the DEMAND. Hypothetically, if you were able to make all oil and gas production illegal in CA, what would happen? DEMAND would remain the exact same, and the SUPPLY would just come from somewhere else. If supply doesn’t come from somewhere else, prices will go up.
Measure G does not make SLO County more environmentally conscious, it just shifts the supply somewhere else. Because of that and the limiting of jobs and taxes (and eventual elimination), I can’t support the measure.
All snarky comments about wars for Israel aside and the fact that hippie environmentalists are annoying af, I will be voting Yes On G to Ban Fracking
Oil is not the reason we are murdering millions in the middle east.
Yes on G, we must secure the existence of our land and a future for our children, Ban Fracking