Voice Of Reason 
Member since May 24, 2018



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Yes on G

Mr. Timewell, you are half correct in your Myth/Fact lineup, but unfortunately half the truth is a whole lie... I'll help you get the other half.

1) Measure G doesn't immediately shut down the oil field; HOWEVER, oil fields naturally decline. Due to this, within a very short time frame it will likely be uneconomic to produce from the Arroyo Grande oil field. As a result, the oil field would be then shut down. Why? Because of Measure G.

2) Counties that successfully banned fracking have no fracking. The courts in Measure Z did not uphold fracking, they declined to rule on it because there is NO FRACKING IN THAT COUNTY. What they did rule on was that the rest of Measure Z was not legal. The county did not pursue further legal action because the costs were too high.

3) Gas prices - no disagreement. The question I have is WHO CARES WHERE THEY SELL THE OIL? It's the tax revenue that matters. If everything produced in SLO county should stay in SLO county, your agriculture argument goes out the window. Nobody is dictating where you sell your wine. Why should you get to dictate where they sell their oil?

Questions for you:
What makes drilling at Arroyo Grande extreme?
What is the technical explanation that supports that there will be fracking in the county?
If there is an answer to the previous question, why aren't companies fracking now?
If you want more drinking water, why not limit wine production, as it takes an estimated 375 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of wine? Why single out one industry?

On the article you posted:
Did you notice that the study areas are NOT IN CALIFORNIA? That's because there is very little fracking CA, because it's not needed...

Enjoy your low heating bill this winter.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 08/20/2018 at 11:52 AM

Re: “Say no to fracking in SLO County

Nobody is fracking in SLO county. This is an attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

If you are worried about the No on G lobbyists, watch out for the Yes on G Lobbyists. I posted a comment pointing out an inaccuracy in their opinions on their Facebook page. Guess what happened? THEY DELETED IT!

I encourage everyone to talk to experts. That doesn't mean environmental lobbyists or oil lobbyists. Sort through the bias and don't let ridiculously biased letters like this one sway your opinion. Do your own research and get specific!

3 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 08/16/2018 at 12:40 PM

Re: “Yes on G

The losers will also be the local taxpayers. Why?

1) The oil companies will likely take the county to court. Monterey County experienced this and had to spend millions.

2) This would be considered a "taking" of the value of the property. The oil companies may not be able to produce, but if that is so then county would have to compensate the oil companies for the fair market value of what they are taking.

3) There are varying figures out there regarding how much in taxes will be lost. Regardless, THERE WILL BE A LOSS in tax revenue.

So how do you make up for this? Increase taxes on everyone else.

I'm all for the environment, but I prefer to take action in my own life instead of forcing compliance on some at everyone's expense.

0 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 08/16/2018 at 12:34 PM

Re: “Conflicting visions: Measure G puts a decision about the future of oil in SLO County on the November ballot

If I'm not mistaken, it appears Ms. Halley's view is that their oil field is over 1000 acres of prime oil producing reservoir...

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 07/12/2018 at 3:46 PM

Re: “Support a limit on oil expansion

I respect your opinion, but would ask two questions.

"I fear will contaminate the drinking water in Pismo Beach". On what data is that fear based?

"they will be injecting more than 1.3 million gallons of toxic wastewater into our drinking water aquifer every day". Is the drinking water for Arroyo Grande from the Arroyo Grande Oil Field?

I can answer this. According to a June 2018 report, 94% of Arroyo Grande's drinking water comes from Lopez Lake and of the six sources there were 0 violations.


2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 07/12/2018 at 9:56 AM

Re: “Majority of SLO City Council signs anti-oil letter to governor

Never gonna happen...

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 06/28/2018 at 9:05 AM

Re: “Fracking ban heads to November ballot

I'd love to respond to all of the interesting and loose commentary above, but I'll stick with this point that was never acknowledged in a previous piece.

Doug here emphasizes that the US exports One Million barrels a day. Well guess what? California alone uses 2 Million barrels a day. Even better, CALIFORNIA IMPORTS just as much oil as the US exports every day, One Million barrels everyday. EVERYDAY. Interesting how certain realities can just be ignored...

California Oil Supply

Where California Imports Come From - See the third paragraph under "Petroleum"

"Crude oil production in California and Alaska has declined, and California refineries have become increasingly dependent on imports to meet the state's needs.33,34 Led by Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, and Columbia, foreign suppliers now provide more than half of the crude oil refined in California.35,36"

The coalition's suggestion that "hemp fuel" will solve all of our fuel needs is, at the very least, entertaining.

Both of those links are from state websites and they both say the same thing. I think it would be more fitting (and somewhat humorous) if the Coalition's slogan read something more like this:


Facts are stubborn things.

Over/under before Doug claims I am BiG OiL (semi caps?) set at 14 hours... who's in?!

6 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 06/21/2018 at 8:42 PM

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