Barry Rands 
Member since Jun 22, 2017



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Money mails

Thanks for the great article! I actually had a conversation with Tom Bordonaro about his opposition to Measure G and specifically why he thinks it will "ban routine maintenance on existing wells" and "shut down all existing production". After all, he said he "closely studied Measure G", so he should have been able to respond, right? Wrong! He told me (I am paraphrasing here) "I don't have the measure in front of me" and oh, by the way, "I had a colleague of mine in the Central valley do the analysis for me. After all, they have no skin in the game and have a lot more experience with oil production than we do". Right, Tom, "no skin in the game???" As if the Central Valley doesn't rely on oil revenues to fund the government operations there. Anyway, he said he would get back to me with more information.... still waiting.

8 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Barry Rands on 10/06/2018 at 9:26 AM

Re: “Chevron pours $4 million into fight against Measure G

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.

2 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Barry Rands on 10/05/2018 at 3:08 PM

Re: “Chevron pours $4 million into fight against Measure G

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.

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by Barry Rands on 10/05/2018 at 11:32 AM

Re: “Chevron pours $4 million into fight against Measure G

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.

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by Barry Rands on 10/05/2018 at 8:10 AM

Re: “Chevron pours $4 million into fight against Measure G

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…
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.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Barry Rands on 10/04/2018 at 12:44 PM

Re: “Chevron pours $4 million into fight against Measure G

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.

10 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Barry Rands on 10/04/2018 at 8:23 AM

Re: “National Drive Electric Week: SLO Farmers Market

Please note that the event has been moved from Broad over to Morro.

Posted by Barry Rands on 09/10/2018 at 6:48 AM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2019 New Times San Luis Obispo
Powered by Foundation