[CRNMC] Can someone subtantiate these claims?

Kelly Larson solarkelly at gmail.com
Thu Jun 12 21:23:17 PDT 2014 

I agree that we are doing very well on with our efforts.  We have
accomplished our goals so far with the petition, and done a great deal of
education.  There have been many lessons that have come out of my
involvement in CRNMC, and I will do some things differently next time,
though.  But I haven't seen or heard anyone associated with the group
knowingly deceive or want to be inaccurate, so although we may make
occasional mistakes, we are at our core honest.  I am glad we have more
clarity on this issue.

Positive emails that create community, and that help us to get along and
work together better, have been extremely helpful for me.  I am pleased to
be doing this with all of you, and pray that we all feel that have more
community now than when we started on this path.

Blessings,
Kelly


On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:19 PM, karinajoy <karinacotler at gmail.com> wrote:

> Very well said, Caitlin. We are learning how to do this very
> difficult/complicated process of changing our cultural mindset, changing
> the direction of our political process. We are not going to be perfect at
> it or reverse society's  suicidal course with one local ordinance. It is
> important that we learn to work together. We are creating real democracy
> and this is just the beginning!
>
> We will hone our skills on many levels, those of us who stick with the
> process. In my opinion, we have done an awesome job so far, especially
> considering the time crunch and that this is our first effort!
>
> Karina
>
>
> On Jun 12, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Caitlin Alexander 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/20140612/16e0cef0/attachment.html

More information about the crn mailing list