Front Page  »  

Santa Barbara County anti-fracking activists wildly outspent

September 23, 2014

frackingThe proponents of a ballot measure calling for a ban on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in Santa Barbara County are being outspent on the campaign trail by a ratio of more than 20 to 1. [KEYT]

If passed, Measure P would prohibit high intensity oil and gas production in unincorporated Santa Barbara County. Such practices, which include fracking, typically involve injecting steam into oil wells.

No fracking has been reported to be occurring in Santa Barbara County, but opponents of the measure have raised nearly $2 million fighting it. In the latest campaign finance report, the No on P campaign has raised $1,950,000, while the Yes on P campaign has brought in a meager $95,000.

The opponents of the ballot measure say their funds come largely from county taxpayers, landowners and the oil and gas industry. Supporters of the initiative say they receive small, individual donations.


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


36 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hand…you clearly have the upper hand on poor little Mary. She wants to ban all oil production in Santa batbara and this is just her first step….


0

Can anyone confirm if Santa Barbara County Measure P instigator Rebecca Claassen’s husband Jacob Claasseen is the same one from Claassen Ranch Road in SLO?


These are people in their early 30’s whose parents come out and give speeches on their behalf, without a peep from the criminally negligent media about their relationships.


If so, the people of Santa Barbara County should be suspicious that Claassen is starting Ranch Wars in the next county instead of on her own husband’s homestead.


Any confirmation on if this is the same Claassen? The reporters aren’t doing their jobs.


https://twitter.com/NoOnPMemes/status/514419313814425600


0

“Santa Barbara County anti-fracking activists wildly outspent”


Good that means the frackers got my check…drill baby drill we need the bling!


0

The technology has changed and what they are doing now is allowing them to access previously unrecoverable reserves. That’s why you are seeing a fracking boom in ND and steam injection in the Canadian tar sands (where steam infections have fractured bedrock and contaminated a lake and acquirer). The problems with these techniques — water use and contamination, earthquakes and high emissions — are worse here where we have little water to spare and sit on fault lines. If you don’t want to see 10,000+ wells that would destroy our environment, than we need measure P to head that off.


0

But Brick, our air quality has IMPROVED DRAMATICALLY in the past 20 years. Just ask the Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Any new permit for an oil well requires an APCD permit that includes REDUCING emissions. And Cyclic Steaming means getting more oil out with LESS wells. Another of your points shot down. If you want LESS wells, then you support Steaming. There has been Steaming going on in Santa Barbara County for decades and NO AQUIFER CONTAMINATION. And finally, Steaming operations get their water from the oil wells (which typically pump mostly water). If the water wasn’t used for Steam, it has to be injected back into the formation. Steaming operations just don’t use fresh water. Why do the Pro Measure P keep saying that? They have no clue how oil operations work. Can you please make a clear argument on why we need Measure P instead of just posting a bunch of links or making unsubstantiated statements? Please, point out where Steaming in Santa Barbara County uses potable water or caused ground water pollution.


0

It is simple: by 2050 there will be ~ 9.2 billion people on the planet. That means that we will have to use extraordinary methods to supply everyone with energy, food and water–and so there it is. In the year 2050, there will be 40% less resources for each person on the planet.


I could, at this point, interject that people need to slow down or stop having children….but people get rabid at the very idea. After all, everyone has the right to a family, and we cannot even hint at this because it smacks of socialism. Everyone should have more kids, and they should carry on as if earth’s resources are in endless supply. No adjustments should be made whatsoever. However, with this comes methods like fracking-because we are having to dig deeper to get at the gas. We are running out of natural resources.


Planning on a big family? Go for it! Who cares about the future?


0

Been reading Paul Erlicks Population Bomb lie again I see…ha ha ha…good liberal, now sell your car and take a shower and waste water, then get off the talking points.


0

MaryMalone seems the lone voice on this thread supporting Measure P. But none of the supporters of Measure P can give me a rational explanation why Measure P bans Steaming. To get heavy oil (thick as Tar at room temperature) out of the ground, you have to heat it up. Steaming has been done in Santa Barbara County for decades. It is not Fracking. It doesn’t cause groundwater pollution. It is highly regulated. If it isn’t safe, why doesn’t Measure P ban all EXISTING Steaming operations? It doesn’t. Mary, please just answer the question directly. Why does Measure P ban Steaming?


0

Much of the rest of our message board community are up to their tits fighting a cover up in Arroyo Grande.


And if you cannot follow simple links, which I previously posted, then you are more impotent than I thought you were at first glance.


0

Mary, I am baiting you to answer in your words not for my satisfaction, but for others who are confused about this issue. I have my mind made up (as do you) but I am giving you the chance to provide information so others might make an informed decision. Your response to my post probably helps my cause as most people are turned off by name calling, but I would have hoped you would have answered my question as to why Measure P includes Steaming instead of just addressing Fracking so others could better make an informed decision.


0
1 2