Voice Of Reason 
Member since May 24, 2018

click to enlarge pdc_logo_1484339420037.jpg



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “I love my kids and opposed Measure G

Nobody is stopping you from NOT using petroleum products Mr. Lewis. Feel free to start any time. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to utilize the cheapest, most reliable energy source currently available (aside from nuclear, which the activists have ensured we can't use). If you truly wanted a transition from petroleum, then the simplest solution is to attack the demand NOT the supply. If Measure G had been about expanding so called "green" energy and not eliminating existing supply perhaps it could have been more successful.

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 11/10/2018 at 6:39 PM

Re: “County measure to ban fracking and oil drilling fails

Mr. Timewell, all this time and you are still operating under false assumptions about me, even after I've told you you are wrong. You are sure I'll be moving on, just like you were sure I was getting paid, just like you were sure fracking was going to become all the rage in SLO County, just like you were sure water is at risk, just like you were sure Measure G would pass. Looks like the only sure thing around here is your ability to be wrong.

Maybe you should start by educating yourself before you go trying to educate others. On the bright, it's nice to see that you can post original thoughts rather than the standard copy-paste. Here is a little secret, if you really want to get rid of me, post something based in reality and leave all the what-if nonsense behind.

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 11/10/2018 at 6:34 PM

Re: “County measure to ban fracking and oil drilling fails

The premise of all these comments seems to be that huge changes are coming and that the oil companies won something. To me, it appears land owners simply maintained their rights that Measure G attempted to take away. I believe the voters saw through the fear tactics, just like the ones Mr. Timewell put in his comment. A NO on G vote didn't signal ignorance, as Ms. Christensen suggests, but rather an indication that voters saw through the speculative fallacies of the Yes on G campaign. It does not make sense to me that everyone who read Measure G and voted NO were labeled as "lairs" and "bought and paid for by big oil". The reality is the language of the Measure was inconsistent and poorly written. Yes on G voters continued to convey the intent of Measure without addressing the reality of its contradictory language.

On the bright side, our future CAN move towards other sources of energy. There are two ways to do this. First, advocate for what you believe in WITHOUT trying to block, limit, or eliminate what you don't want. Second, if you don't want to support "big oil", stop using the products provided by them. It is the most simple solution. Removing demand will inevitably remove the supply.

Hopefully we can all move forward and not get caught up in a hypothetical spiral of "what ifs".

9 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 11/09/2018 at 1:06 PM

Re: “Tricky politics

A translation of Mr. Varni's post above reads: "I can't argue any of the data you provided, so instead I'll divert attention by blaming everything I couldn't defend on big oil lies, extend some more speculative fallacies about how current oil production is a threat, and then just say I'm right without supplying ANYTHING to support my arguments. Then I'll call the employees liars, again, and finish it up with a cliche from Shakespeare quote in an effort to really look like I'm witty, while I ironically do exactly what that cliche says."

Mr. Varni was caught spinning the data. Notice how he refuses to address the facts? Not a single comment about "Products Supplied" because he knows that he misinterpreted the data. One definition and his entire argument went flying out the window. He also knows the "we export sooooo much" argument is about as strong as his technical understanding of oil fields. California is dependent on importing oil and Mr. Varni refuses to accept that reality because it does not fit his talking points.

I hate to break it to Mr. Varni, but he is nothing more than a "he-bear" puppet of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), a group that has repeatedly attempted to shutdown petroleum production. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Measure G is a copy and paste of Measure Z from Monterey County, and guess who was behind that one? That's right, the CBD. Same backers, different county. Is that grassroots, or is that Mr. Varni being a pawn who is blinded by the allure of the "golden nature girl" (his words, not mine) the CBD danced in front of him?

He is right, it is time for the voters to speak. Vote NO on G and send the CBD packing.

9 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 11/05/2018 at 3:24 PM

Re: “Measure G campaigns clash as opposition spends millions

Mr. Rodger, that seems to be taking the fishing analogy a little too far. You are talking about fish, I'm talking about oil production. Oil production is not some habitat we are trying to preserve.

The field being produced will not continue to produce under measure G. I'm not a lawyer, and even I could use Measure G to ensure the field is shut down, so imagine how environmental activists will utilize it. Additionally, the fluid characteristics of the Arroyo Grande field makes it impossible to deplete without new wells. So saying they can continue to pump it dry is impossible due to the laws of physics, specifically the principles of heat transfer and fluid flow through porous media.

Oil production consists of the recycling of water that comes from AND RETURNS TO the oil producing formation. It's a circular process. So to say something will be contaminated by water that came from that zone in the first place doesn't exactly make sense. The formation at the Arroyo Grande Oil Field goes from the surface to about 1,500'. I learned all of this at the EPA workshop, where it was crystal clear that the field was self contained and did not pose a thread to drinking water or agricultural use water. The water that comes out with the oil is NOT economically viable as a source of drinking water. It would cost hundreds of times more for that water than what we currently pay for water. Additionally, all of the drinking water wells even remotely close to the field were tested. Not a single one had any contamination.

Operating under the false pretense that current oil production will contaminate water is just a fear tactic being used. It's unfortunate that this complex issue has been reduced to a speculative fallacy by the yes on G campaign.

Having done a significant amount of research on the issue, the only conclusion is to vote NO on G.

1 like, 4 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 11/04/2018 at 3:25 PM

Re: “Don't be fooled by big oil's big bucks

So we can ignore small business for the big business of Ag and Tourism in the county? Interesting perspective.

Somehow I doubt you are actually interested in or concerned about those employees that will lose their jobs. Saying "let's just train them" seems to be an over simplification and is overall disingenuous.

Ag does need water. How is current oil and gas production impacting that? Where is the water contamination? The oil zone being produced does not have usable water. Additionally, all of the wells in the surrounding area have been monitored and have exactly 0 (zero) contamination.

So saying "let's protect our water" when water is not at risk is nothing more than a scare tactic.

Talking about the financial liability of the county, however, happens to be something based in reality and is also listed in that fiscal impact report. Monterey County got to waste a million dollars by passing an unconstitutional measure. It went to court and got overturned. Let's not be the definition of insanity and do the same thing expecting different results.

Vote NO on G.

5 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 11/04/2018 at 3:03 PM

Re: “Tricky politics

Getting lectured by Mr. Varni on compassion is a little ironic given his apathy for the 200+ hard working employees and contractors that make their living in SLO County oil fields. While they stand up and plead for their jobs, he responds by calling them liars. Compassion at its finest.

The fact that the coalition allows Mr. Varni to be their spokesperson make sense, as his inability to understand and digest these complex numbers (we are talking addition here) allows him to continue to make uninformed statements while not understanding what he is actually talking about. In regards to the data, I was using the most current data available. That's not cherry picking, its called being relevant. I noticed you were having some challenges with the data (and math... like addition), so I'll take the time to help here:

First, it is important to note that PADD 5 consists of the entire west coast. I specified that. More refined data is not available, but it is not correct to say the data is CA only, like Mr. Varni has done. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.p…

In 2018, PADD 5 has exported 2.56 million barrels in 2018. PADD 5, NOT CA specifically. It's comical because Mr. Varni couldn't even do the simple addition to come to the right number.

Let's talk about cherry picking data. Like not mentioning that we IMPORTED 254 MILLION BARRELS. PADD 5 imported 99 times more barrels than it exported. That's the math, and it seems to support my statement that we are MAJOR importers, not exporters. Another way of viewing this data is averages. We imported 1,378,000 barrels per day and exported 14,000 barrels per day.

Mr. Varni's attempts to make it seem like we are huge exporters are just silly.

The rest of Mr. Varni's numbers are a joke, just like his analysis of them. What he claims are "exports" are not. Please see "Products Supplied" in the following link. It specifically states that the definition is "Approximately represents consumption of petroleum products". Consumption means products that we used, not products that we exported.

Mr. Varni pulled a bunch of numbers off of the "products supplied" page on the EIA website and misinterpreted the data. Big surprise. Products supplied does NOT mean products exported. It means products CREATED from all of the petroleum sources (domestic production + imports).

So yes, these products were created, but they were not exported as Mr. Varni suggests. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_CONS_PSUP…

In summary, PADD 5 imports 99 times more petroleum than it exports. Additionally, it is reasonable to assume the exports were from Alaska, as CA petroleum needs are significant and exporting makes no sense. The products that are created from all of our petroleum sources are refined and used, not exported.

Mr. Varni has continually twisted and/or completely misunderstood the data to meet his needs. He has no technical understanding of the topics that he is discussing, which has led to a deluge of misinformation from the Coalition.

Real data interpretation leads to real answers. The answer here is NO on G.

10 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by Voice Of Reason on 11/04/2018 at 2:51 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