[CRNMC] Can someone subtantiate these claims?

Caitlin Alexander caitlin29 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 12 13:28:00 PDT 2014 

You are in conflict with my opinion due to your independent mind and
opinions - it was inevitable and I'm OK with it.

It was my opinion - no one else is forced to agree or disagree, therefor it
is not a hierarchical demand for obedience. You have the right to your
opinion - I am not accusing you of demanding my or anyone else's obedience
which would be the difference in our reactions.




On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 1:15 PM, john anderson <infoprog1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I strongly disagree with the statement that our independence and strength
> of mind makes conflict inevitable and OK. Even failing to note that it is
> just one's opinion is an indication of rigid claims, the illusion of
> certainty, and the negation of other people's opinions; essentially just
> another type of hierarchical demand for obedience to your opinion.
>
> I think that when we lack relationship and the trust that results from
> that (as the "who deserves to be in and who is out" conversations when
> Willits and Mendocino factions bumped into each other), we think with what
> Alan Watts called a threat detection monitor which can only think in
> either/or terms. If we do not wake up from this hallucination, we will not
> survive, regardless of how many ordinances are passed. Maybe some day we
> will engage in a little generative dialogue process to seed the necessary
> shift. Maybe not.
> john
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Caitlin Alexander <caitlin29 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> With all due respect Tim, I suspect this ordinance will pass because of
>> us not in spite of us. We are, each of us in this group, independent and
>> strong-minded thinkers which will naturally bring conflict, this is
>> inevitable and OK. Our methods and processes are not being dictated by one
>> person or a small group, everyone has a say as they feel the need, which
>> may be less streamlined and efficient but is a testament to the fact that
>> we are working outside of the colonized method of top-down, hierarchical
>> systems and we are doing great!
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Tim Rice <tim at multitalents.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Shannon Biggs wrote:
>>>
>>> > Indeed that is the focus and a good reminder for all.
>>>
>>> Also a reminder that *how* we go about getting this ordinance passed is
>>> at least (if not more) important than getting it passed.
>>>
>>> If we adopt the "just get it done" approach common in our society, and
>>> use half truths and exaggerations to "sell" the ordinance, we will
>>> have just modeled and legitimized the very system we are trying
>>> to change. To me, having the ordinance pass going down that route, would
>>> be a huge failure.
>>>
>>> It's important to make sure our message can stand the scrutiny of those
>>> that may not like what we are doing. And more importantly, we as a group
>>> need to model what we claim to be about. The "who decides?" thing has
>>> been interesting to watch in our group. A fair amount of modeling our
>>> default culture. To be fair, when we got into this, we didn't know
>>> what we didn't know and we naively thought we were different and could
>>> get this done in the incredibly short amount of time we had for this
>>> election cycle.
>>>
>>> I strongly suspect this ordinance will pass in spite of us. There is
>>> huge energy behind the changes we're attempting to accomplish. The
>>> question
>>> is, will having the ordinance pass represent a minor temporary success
>>> or a huge lasting success. That will largely depend on how willing we are
>>> at looking at our colonized thinking.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 6/12/14 8:34 AM, "Paul Lambert" <paul52jazz at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Thanks for clarifications, Shannon. As someone who both supports
>>> CRNMC and is
>>> > > a member of the media, I have observed that focusing on the fracking
>>> issue
>>> > > (while a strong recruiting hook) is engendering  some hysteria -
>>> there are 15
>>> > > permits in Mendocino - that would be better directed towards the
>>> real aim of
>>> > > the initiative - establishing local control over the purity of water.
>>> >
>>> > If you
>>> > > keep your focus entirely on fracking, the deeper message of local
>>> control of
>>> > > resources might get lost and weaken your campaign in November by
>>> bringing in
>>> > > outside money from Western States Petroleum Association to oppose
>>> you.
>>> >
>>> > So, I
>>> > > urge all of you as a friend and supporter to focus on the less sexy
>>> topic of
>>> > > local citizen control over air and water.
>>> >
>>> > My two cents,
>>> >
>>> > Paul Lambert
>>> >
>>> > On Jun
>>> > > 11, 2014 11:51 AM, Shannon Biggs <shannon at globalexchange.org> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Re:
>>> > > [CRNMC] Can someone subtantiate these claims?
>>> > > Hi all,
>>> > >
>>> > > I think as a part
>>> > > of our online culture its important to be really aware of our
>>> language, and
>>> > > how others will interpret our ³tone.² Email is often terrible at
>>> delivering
>>> > > intent, and creates a defensive posture ­ which I know we have been
>>> struggling
>>> > > with as a group.
>>> > >
>>> > > So having said that, let me share my thoughts on this
>>> > > item, and then lets try to get to a solution needed.
>>> > >
>>> > > Paul, my
>>> > > understanding is that this group list is for the volunteers who are
>>> part of
>>> > > CRNMC  with the goal to exchange information and keep the ball
>>> rolling, so if
>>> > > you feel I was asking you something journalistic, not so. I agree,
>>> we should
>>> > > have a base of facts that you are all comfortable with. The ³15
>>> permits² is a
>>> > > good fact to verify, but again  It was mentioned by someone else at
>>> the event
>>> > > who lives in Mendocino. I am not the author of the stat, but I did
>>> hear it
>>> > > from members of the team. If whoever did say it, could send that
>>> information
>>> > > forward we¹d all be richer for knowing. I do trust what you all say
>>> from the
>>> > > podium is based on your local knowledge, so I¹m guessing that its
>>> true, but we
>>> > > should nail it down.
>>> > >
>>> > > My job is to guide you all in rights-based practices
>>> > > taking the issue that you are concerned with ­ i.e. Fracking in your
>>> county.
>>> > >  I do believe you should be knowledgeable on the threats locally and
>>> > > And it
>>> > > would be great if we all saw getting to the useful information as
>>> ³our² job.
>>> > >  I brought a fracking expert ­ David ­ to speak to fracking
>>> generally and in
>>> > > CA, and hold a great deal of information about fracking - Please do
>>> remember I
>>> > > work with a  dozen communities at a time, and cannot be an expert on
>>> the
>>> > > particulars of each place, though I will see what I can dig up (see
>>> below).
>>> > >   My expertise is in applying what you all see as the issue to the
>>> > > rights-based framework.  If you have a question on rights, ask me I¹m
>>> > > absolutely the right person for that job.
>>> > >
>>> > > Best, Shannon
>>> > >
>>> > > Some
>>> > > resources:
>>> > > http://theava.com/archives/29538
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/03/14/18752559.php
>>> > > And while it can
>>> > > be shown that there is no active production of conventional
>>> resources in
>>> > > Mendocino County, any recent exploratory well locations are
>>> confidential. Thus
>>> > > the potential for both horizontal or slant deviant drilling and
>>> multiple wells
>>> > > per pad combined with hydraulic fracturing in Mendocino County at
>>> some point
>>> > > in the future cannot be entirely ruled out. Technically feasible and
>>> > > economically viable approaches may be discovered by the oil and gas
>>> industry
>>> > > to tap the tight-gas and shale oil potential in the Franciscan
>>> formations, and
>>> > > interest in production could shift from the mature oil-rich resource
>>> areas in
>>> > > southern California to the un-associated gas-yielding formations in
>>> the
>>> > > northern parts of the State.
>>> > >
>>> > >  It also cannot be ignored, that the wells
>>> > > in Mendocino and Humboldt Counties are owned by the same Big Oil
>>> Corporate
>>> > > Petroleum Companies that own the lease-held agreements to production
>>> on tracts
>>> > > of lands in the States of Texas, Oklahoma, New York, Colorado and
>>> Kern.
>>> > >  Bakersfield is more like a Corporate Park in the State of Kern and
>>> most of
>>> > > the north coast county wells are owned by Corporations with 2
>>> addresses, one
>>> > > in Houston, and one in Bakersfield. Holdings in Bakersfield and
>>> throughout the
>>> > > Kern Oil Fields may change hands for flexible market viability and
>>> company
>>> > > survivability, but those same companies selling leased acres even in
>>> other
>>> > > Shale plays in other States, (to reduce debt load from expansion),
>>> have held
>>> > > onto ownerships in Northern California, and are expanding the
>>> lease-acres.
>>> > > Chevron, Vintage (OXY) and INNEX hold leases or own acreage in
>>> Humboldt,
>>> > > Mendocino, and Sonoma Counties.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On 6/11/14 11:12 AM, "Paul Lambert"
>>> > > <paul52jazz at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> Actually, Shannon it would behoove you and
>>> > > crn members if you nailed it down.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Leaving it to me or other journalists
>>> > > opens you to charges of misrepresentation and trying to build up
>>> hysteria.
>>> > >  Since you said it, you need to confirm it or deny it.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Not my job.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > > Paul
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Shannon Biggs
>>> > > <shannon at globalexchange.org> wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> HI there,
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Yes David is a
>>> > > founder of Americans Against fracking and is currently working with
>>> the
>>> > > coalition Californians Against Fracking, of which Global Exchange
>>> and 50 other
>>> > > organizations are members.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> I did not claim there were 15 permits, but
>>> > > I did hear that at one of the meetings by someone from CRNMC. Not
>>> sure who.
>>> > > There are some articles out there if you google search, and some
>>> folks
>>> > > mentioned some specific articles. Be good for you all to nail down
>>> the facts
>>> > > and your talking points on that, as we get our information from you
>>> all on
>>> > > local matters.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> If you have questions for David, let me know and I can
>>> > > ask him.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Shannon
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> On 6/11/14 9:57 AM, "Paul Lambert"
>>> > > <paul52jazz at gmail.com <http://paul52jazz@gmail.com> > wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>> I
>>> > > believe that David Braun also stated that....btw he claimed to me to
>>> be a
>>> > > founder or associated with Californians against fracking but a
>>> search of their
>>> > > site shows no reference to him anywhere.....
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>>
>>> > > Paul
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:53 AM, edward Oberweiser
>>> > > <edoberweiser at gmail.com <http://edoberweiser@gmail.com> > wrote:
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> I
>>> > > agree,
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> This is sounding pretty flaky to me. We shouldn't claim
>>> > > this unless we have substantial proof. Who else besides Shannon is
>>> claiming
>>> > > this. If there are approved permits, shouldn't we be able to get that
>>> > > information from the county?
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> Ed Oberweiser
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> On
>>> > > Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Paul Lambert <paul52jazz at gmail.com
>>> > > <http://paul52jazz@gmail.com> > wrote:
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> Several time I have heard
>>> > > Shannon Biggs and others claiming that there are 15 (?) already
>>> approved
>>> > > permits for fracking in Mendocino County but when I have asked her
>>> and others,
>>> > > the only reference I could get is to a small colored state or fed
>>> map that
>>> > > shows approved fracking sites, mainly in the mid-state area but
>>> whose tip
>>> > > seems to end in Mendocino.  There is no attribution for the map, nor
>>> are there
>>> > > any details as to who issued the permits, where they are located,
>>> who holds
>>> > > them and what their plans are.
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> Can someone help because this is
>>> > > a potentially damaging assertion which could undermine your
>>> credibility if it
>>> > > is not substantiated.
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> Paul
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > >>> crn mailing list
>>> > >>>
>>> > > crn at lists.mcn.org
>>> > >>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > crn mailing list
>>> > crn at lists.mcn.org
>>> > http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim Rice                                Multitalents    (707) 456-1146
>>> tim at multitalents.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> crn mailing list
>>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> crn mailing list
>> crn at lists.mcn.org
>> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/crn/attachments/20140612/861d105e/attachment.html

More information about the crn mailing list