Doug Timewell 
Member since Mar 8, 2018

Recent Comments

Re: “Water vapor, greenhouse gases, and global warming

Mr. Bryne...

Your point of "could allow" really has no value. You pay for home and auto insurance, I presume, to mitigate risk? The risk to our water supply is not insurable and has to be regulated for the safety of the public. The Arroyo Grande Oil Field currently has ten or more active waste injection wells pumping 180,000 gallons (every day) of oil field waste-water (under very high pressure) into a drinking water aquifer; and they operate those injection wells WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM THE EPA and in violation of the Safe Water Drinking Act. That daily waste disposal will easily increase to more than 1.2 million gallons EVERY DAY with oil field expansion.

Peter, to help you keep that in perspective, the climate impact barrel for barrel, from production in the Arroyo Grande oil field is worse than that of oil from the Alberta Tar Sands in Canada (by as much as 32% worse), which is often referred to as among the most carbon-intensive petroleum in the world. The California Air Resources Board assigns a carbon intensity score to different production areas. But you probably know this already.…

This report lists the carbon intensity score of the Arroyo Grande Oil Field (AGOF) crude is 27.81 while the score of crude from the tar sands ranges from 21.02 to 24.49. The AGOF oil is very heavy and high gravity, and thus requires thermally enhanced oil recovery (steam injection) to produce it. Steam injection in the AGOF requires HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF GALLONS OF WATER to be heated into steam every year, primarily through the combustion of natural gas. Obviously, the expansion of the AGOF would increase CO2 output as the result of burning more gas to make more steam. Right!

Over the next 5 years (using the DOGGR reported CURRENT running rate), the Arroyo Grande Oil Field will convert more than ONE BILLION gallons of water into steam (and up to TEN TIMES THAT IF EXPANSION ALLOWED). Yes, that's Billion with a B over five years (over 1,000,000,000 gallons of water heated to steam). Imagine the amount of gas burned and CO2 that's generated and spit into our local air supply.

If the AGOF expansion is allowed - the math, just for the fun of it says - over the next 10 years (based on operator estimates of oil production of 10k barrels per day of oil and current ratios of water extraction at 19:1), the Arroyo Grande Oil Filed would extract over 29,000,000,000 (29 Billion) gallons of water or 88,957 ACRE FEET of water from the Arroyo Grande aquifer. Further, 13,000,000,000 gallons of that water would be heated with gas to become steam and CO2.

Where is all that water going to come from??

How important is our air quality to the residents of our county??

The Arroyo Grande oil fields CO2 emissions in 2015 is reported to be 78,000 metric TONS of CO2 and that number would grow exponentially if expansion is allowed. This makes the Arroyo Grande oil field one of the highest single contributors of CO2 in our County.

To recap, the Arroyo Grande oil field added value is the generation of all that unwanted CO2, wasting Billions of gallons of water, and injecting their oil waste into a water aquifer while putting at risk the drinking water of Edna Valley and the Five Cities.

Just my 2 cents...

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Doug Timewell on 06/12/2018 at 10:19 AM

Re: “Battling oil

Mr or Ms VoiceofReason, Its not clear what youre asking. I do think Ms. Ferrari is clear and references her sources which she comments on. The referenced oil operation is reinjecting millions of gallons of toxic waste water and gas into an aquifer 2 miles from the city of Pismo Beach each week. According to DOGGR, last calendar year, the Arroyo Grande Oil Field injected 239,919,414 gallons of waste water into the Arroyo Grande ground aquifer. Thats not a typo, yes 239 MILLION gallons. Along with that water, they injected 200,975,000 cubic feet of gas and air (reported to DOGGR in Mcf), besides the waste water now we need to worry about the GAS injected into the ground? Im no expert, but this doesnt sound like a good thing.

My understanding is that the Arroyo Grande oil field facilitates this injection with wells, many of which are said to be illegally outside allowable defined water aquifer boundaries but unenforced by DOGGR. Apparently there are thousands of these illegal wells in California, but in our backyard why?. Yet, the injection of unwanted oil waste, water, and gas continues. A friend just sent me a copy of a February 2018 letter from the EPA (yes, the EPA) in response to a Freedom of information request. The request was for the existence of any current EPA-issued Permits for the Arroyo Grande Oil Field the letter says there are no records. Unlicensed to operate in our county, who do we talk to about that?

That said...

"If you need to know one thing about rare earth metals, its that theyre crucial to modern technology, helping power everything from MRI machines and satellites to headphones and nuclear reactors. If you need to know two things, its that despite their name, theyre not at all rare."

"The name rare earth is a historical misnomer, stemming from that when they first discovered, they were difficult to extract from surrounding matter. The USGS (United States Geological Survey) describes rare earth elements as moderately abundant, meaning that although theyre not as common as elements like oxygen, silicon, aluminum, and iron (which together make up 90 percent of the Earths crust), theyre still well dispersed around the planet."…

The reference you offered is made to be scary, China is a major producer of solar panels because they do it cheaper and under less regulation, but Canadian producers manufacture a higher quality product.……………

Invest in Battery Technology -……

"All energy sources have some impact on our environment. Fossil fuelscoal, oil, and natural gasdo substantially more harm than renewable energy sources by most measures, including air and water pollution, damage to public health, wildlife and habitat loss, water use, land use, and global warming emissions."…………………

"Efficiency is a much greater factor for non-renewable energy sources because they have to pay for their fuel. Renewable sources dont. The wind blows and the sun shines regardless of whether anyone puts up a solar or wind farm to capture it. The wind and sun are free resources.
Car engines only turn about 20% of the energy in gas into movement, with the rest being waste heat. Coal plants achieve from 33% to 40% efficiency in the best cases, with the rest being just wasted heat. Combined cycle gas plants, where the heat is used in addition to the mechanical energy to generate electricity manage to make it up to about 54% efficiency."

"But all of those fossil fuel sources are paying for 100% of the fuel, and the negative externalities of the fuel are from 100% of it. In fact, CO2 emissions are two to three times the mass of the fuel inputs, so its arguable that we are paying for 300% of the fuel but only getting 20% to 50% out of it."…

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Doug Timewell on 05/27/2018 at 11:19 AM

Re: “Battling oil

Mr or Ms VoiceofReason, is it your position that we as a World should abandon mining metals (some rare but most not) used in MRI machines, cell phones, solar energy, and alternate forms of energy generating and storage technologies? Are you saying "drill-baby-drill" and "burn-baby-burn" until we can no longer breath from growing CO2 levels as our planet heats up? I can visualize the billowing smoke in that Mad Max dystopian scenario.

I want to Triple-Dog-Dare YOU to come out from the shadows and reveal your true-self. Hiding behind an alias makes you appear to be more than one person, when yet again another single-use alias replies to an oil-related opinion or story. The more likely explanation is that these posts are from a party-of-one "paid for political manipulator" in business to stir the pot.

0 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Doug Timewell on 05/27/2018 at 11:19 AM

Re: “Battling oil

I WILL VOTE IN NOVEMBER TO BAN NEW OIL WELLS, FRACKING & ACIDIZING IN SLO COUNTY.... we have a beautiful county, let's protect it. Join me and tell big oil and the political consultants from Sacramento that you don't need them to tell you how to vote!

12 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Doug Timewell on 05/24/2018 at 8:19 AM

Re: “Arroyo Grande mulls tough decisions, including staff cuts, to make up expected budget gap

Gail - no argument from me, the numbers are difficult to reach - but isn't this our city to support. Maybe a campaign to help is in order, officials can only do so much with what they're given... am I wrong?

Posted by Doug Timewell on 05/11/2018 at 5:21 PM

Re: “Would you vote to ban new oil wells and fracking in SLO County?

Im so thankful were having this dialog no matter what were told by those working for the oil industry, one truth is clear. If our county water supply is damaged by accident (leaking or broken pipes, human error) or by oil extraction techniques approved by the department of oil and gas and the EPA (reinjection, fracking, acidizing) YOU WILL be the one PAYING to clean it up!

I VOTE to Ban ALL New Oil Wells and PREVENT Fracking and Acidizing in San Luis Obispo County. I VOTE to HELP prevent the REAL risk to our local WATER and the Santa Maria Water Basin. I VOTE to HELP prevent OIL operations from popping up in the HUASNA Valley, Alamo Creek/Porter Ranch, TAR Springs, LOPEZ Lake, the Arroyo Grande oilfield Expansion, and other outlining communities where mineral rights have been acquired by oil companies.

The FACT is that every single drop of oil from the Arroyo Grande Oilfield goes into the Phillips 66 pipeline to Nipomo and then to San Francisco to mix with higher quality crude from other regions, refined, and then shipped on the International Oil market. THIS low-quality tar-crude in SLO does not run your car or lawnmower. The gas sold at Costco, and your local gas stations is trucked from Signal Hill (Southern California) and Bakersfield Refineries where oil is higher in quality and less carbon intensive to extract and refine.

As International OIL futures go up in price (over $70 a barrel) due to demand in Asia markets including China, SLO County becomes just another slave to International oil dependency I VOTE to protect OUR county, OUR water, OUR air quality. I VOTE to take this step to deduce the growing dependency on DIRTY oil extraction, especially when that extraction places ANY risk to local scarce water resources.

The recent pipeline break in Refugio (Santa Barbara County) cost over $100 MILLION to clean up. It might cost Billions to one day clean up Price Canyon in Arroyo Grande. I VOTE to BAN all new Oil Wells in MY county!

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Doug Timewell on 05/09/2018 at 9:32 AM

Re: “Would you vote to ban new oil wells and fracking in SLO County?


19 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Doug Timewell on 05/06/2018 at 10:46 AM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2018 New Times San Luis Obispo
Powered by Foundation