Voice Of Reason 
Member since May 24, 2018



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

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

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.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 10/11/2018 at 4:44 PM

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

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…

5 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 10/05/2018 at 12:59 PM
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 10/04/2018 at 4:00 PM

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

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.

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...

6 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 10/04/2018 at 3:54 PM

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

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."

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 10/04/2018 at 11:31 AM

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

I'm getting paid as much as you are...

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 10/04/2018 at 10:06 AM

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

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.

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 10/04/2018 at 8:56 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