My response to Op Ed “How the word ‘fracking’ is used as a political scare tactic”

How the word ‘fracking’ is used as a political scare tactic

BY JOHN Peschong  John Allan Peschong served in President Ronald Reagan’s administration and as a senior strategist for the campaigns of President George W. Bush. He is a founding partner of Meridian Pacific Inc., a public relations and affairs company, and serves as chairman of the San Luis Obispo County Republican Party. His column appears twice a month in The Tribune, in rotation with liberal columnist Tom Fulks.

 Special to The Tribune February 22, 2015

​That is a great headline Mr. Peschong. Got my attention. As a mom and concerned citizen who loves living here I can agree that word ‘fracking’ can be very scary.

Having raised 3 kids in what can be a very scary world I found educating myself with facts along with some good old fashion common sense was a great antidote for scary. And while we may agree or disagree on opinions, facts speak for themselves.

So, I want to make sure I understand the premise you are presenting here and what I am hearing is, ballot measures written to prevent harm are dishonest and deeply flawed.   That is very interesting. I was not aware of that fact.  I was of the opinion that laws were mainly written to insure the safety, health and well being of individuals and the community they share in common with each other.

Our legal system based on your premise then must be fatally flawed as it is inundated with laws that prohibit harmful behavior.

There are guns laws, wash your hands laws, workplace ladder laws, stop sign laws, food handling laws, electrical wiring laws, house building laws, business license laws, chemical handling laws, air and water pollution laws all written with the intent of preventing harm and keeping us safe and healthy.

​You mentioned ‘fracking’ bans in particular in cities and counties across California as being dishonest and deeply flawed based on the fact that no ‘fracking’ was taking place there.

This is not to say it couldn’t and if the opportunity presented itself more than likely would, if there was not a law preventing it.   As for here in SLO the industry has stated they have no intention of fracking in Price Canyon or Huasna.

Of course that is not to say they couldn’t change their mind and without a ban there is nothing to prevent them from doing it.

My confusion on this issue is, if there is no intent to frack here what is all the fuss about a ban on something you have no intention of doing? Unless of course you do intend to frack in which case your opposition makes more sense.

I also appreciate your concern about the cost of an election. It would be costly if we had to go to an election but the Board of Supervisors could offset that cost by just signing the measure into law once it is certified by the county clerk.

The cost of an election however would pale in comparison to the cost of a cleanup of an industry that has a history of accident, spills, explosions, fires, human and environmental violations.

Richmond CA is a good example. The Chevron Refinery fire that killed 8 people displaced and disrupted 15,000 lives and was subject to what you have referred to as the best laws in the country.

Two years down the road people are still struggling to recover costs and damages caused by the ‘accident’ as Chevron denies any wrongdoing or liability, responsibility for harm and damages the fire and explosion caused.

Chevron was cited after the fact for 3,700 violations of the best regulations in the county. The best laws in the country are useless if they are not enforced.

Chevron made $26 billion that year, paid out about 2 million in fines and settlement, drop in the bucket. It cost the city 6.1 million dollars in lost tax revenue from destroyed homes and businesses. I wonder if that includes cost of repairs to the infrastructure?

A special election would cost about $70,000. Still it pales in comparison to what it cost to partner up with an business that refuses to assume any of the liabilities for its operation and shows utter contempt  disrespect and disregard for the safety, health and well being of others.

I will have to respectfully disagree with you and your colleagues, Mr. Peschong but I think New York has the best Fracking laws in the country not California.

San Luis Obispo ban ‘fracking’ in 1986, city ordinance 17.92.020 well before the colloquial term ‘fracking’ was in use nonetheless I don’t see any rigs in SLO.  Flawed and dishonest ordinance?

On the subject of definitions I have found the oil industry the primary source of most of the confusion. They keep saying they have been fracking for decades.  And then they say no fracking is going on.

So which is it?   You really can’t have it both ways.

Perhaps one of your own put it best and we can use his definition.   “Fracking and drilling are not the same thing,” said University of Houston engineering professor Michael Economides, who consults for drillers on fracturing. “We drill wells. Then we frack.”   Yup its the same.

Confusion begets the oil industry. They are champs at ambiguities. Classic case in point. The Halliburton Loophole.

Definition of a Loophole.

A loophole is an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.  A flaw.

What this means is the oil industry is granted a pardon, special dispensation,  from any wrongdoing or harm to our air, water, drinking water, flora fauna, as a result of their extreme, unconventional, enhanced, well stimulation, oil extraction process, aka ‘fracking.’

I am sure a person of your experience and influence can understand how a mother such as myself concerned first and foremost for the safety, health and well being of her family and every mother’s child for generations to come could trust a entity that used all its power and influence to get themselves exempted from all the things I hold precious, a safe place to call home.

I can’t begin to understand the complexities, absurdities, intricacies of a highly specialized and confounding political system that we are living in today. I leave that up to the experts such as yourself.

What I do want is to be able to do is keep my promise to my kids and grand kids and leave them a future I can be proud of, safe clean water, fresh air and healthy soil. All the ingredients needed for a prosperous and abundant life.

In all of my research on this issue of fracking, Mr. Peschong, I have not been able to find one single solitary contribution to those ends.

I agree with all those little cities and towns, counties and communities, States and countries that have passed and are in the process of passing bans and moratoriums on a industry that seems to operate counter intuitive to common sense and logic. On this we may disagree and that is o.k.

Jeanne Blackwell

The safety of the people is the supreme law. Bacon’s Max. in Reg. 12; Broom’s Max. 1.  Prevention is better than cure. Co. Litt. 304.  “In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” — George Orwell.

Very Interesting. Mimi Kallard, President, SLO former Grand Jurors’ Association

sent via email to me, Jeanne Blackwell @ on Nov. 17, 2014, in response to Newsletter # 24, All Hands on Deck.


Mimi writes:
“Ask anyone who has served on the grand jury and they will tell you that sending 25 petitions to ask them for an investigation is exactly the wrong way to proceed.  This is the opposite of spectacular.  A civil grand jury does not respond to being bombarded with complaints. If anything, it will annoy the hell out of them.  Furthermore, grand juries do not respond to requests to hurry up.  They choose which complaints to investigate, and many are not taken up at all.  They have no obligation to respond.  You will not hear back from them one way or another.  I recommend that you go to the Superior Court website and read the section about the grand jury.



Mimi Kalland, President

SLO Former Grand Jurors’ Association”


My response:

Thank you Mimi for taking the time to educate me on my civic duty and what we can expect from a jury of our peers. It appears reprimand is well within your parameters and you can and will not hesitate to exercise that power.

Thank you for letting me know that the grand jury regards multiple complaints on a single subject matter as a reason to automatically dismiss every single person’s right to file a complaint.  It is important to know that you judge the complaints not by their content but rather by the mere fact that there are too many. And is 2 too many? What is that number Mimi and how are we to know which complaint, which person, triggers automatic dismissal?

It would appear you have no problem reprimanding as is very apparent by the air and tone of your message.  If I did not take my civic duty to alert a vested seated jury of my peers who have vowed to keep a watchful eye over the intent and behavior of our public officials to heart, I would find your message to be a warning, the consequences of which is condemnation and censuring of our actions.

Was that your intent Mimi?  Because I have to tell you that is exactly the impression I am getting from your message.

“A civil grand jury does not respond to being bombarded with complaints. If anything, it will annoy the hell out of them.”   This sounds like a warning to keep our concerns to ourselves lest it becomes an annoyance and inconvenience to those serving on our behalf.   It sounds like the grand jury regards  “too many complaints” as a nuisance and source of irritation that gives you reason enough to rule them “out of order.”

I was unaware that it is our duty and responsibility as citizens, when filing a complaint to insure that it does not cause you any inconvenience. Unaware also that we should be very cautious to make sure we do not exceed an arbitrarily decided upon number of complaints that would trigger an annoyance and therefore automatic dismissal of our concerns.

I think your message is very clear Mimi. You are discouraging your fellow citizens from participating in a basic fundamental principle of our democracy. A right to petition our government for redress of grievances. Our basic fundamental right to be heard and our concerns recognized and addressed in a civil and consistent manner.

We are taking our civic duty and expectations of what constitutes a fair, honest, efficiently run governing body very seriously. That is why we thought it prudent and vigilant and choose to contact the grand jury with the hopes that they, more than anyone, would take these concerns to heart as well they should. And the more people that become civic minded and involved in what is going on in their community the better. Spectacular.

Being reprimanded and berated for doing the right thing in alerting the grand jury to the belligerent and arrogant behavior of our elected officials who feel quite confident in arbitrarily disregarding the concerns of over 74,000 people does prove one thing.

You do have the power and authority to reprimand and can “hurry up” if so motivated. Seems the number of complaints to the grand jury did prompt a “hurry up” response as is indicated by you email.  So this same power and authority used to reprimand and censure the citizens could in fact be applied to the subjects of the complaint, The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors. Good to know Mimi. Thank you.

This is very useful information and I will do my very best to get this information out there. This is a matter of public interest. I find it encouraging.

Doing the right thing prevents unintended harm from occurring.  Filing a citizens complaint and seeking a remedy is the right thing to do. And everyone who has been harmed and is seeking a remedy has a right to file a complaint. Discouraging and threatening the citizenry from doing the right thing is wrong.

Using your power to discourage, with threats of reprisal to dismiss the right to be heard, is an abuse of power.  And ironically enough that is exactly what the complaint against the Board of Supervisors is all about.  The Board of Supervisor’s consistent and repeated failure to respond to the concerns of the people shows intent and knowledge of their power and the subsequent abuse thereof.

And I think more than anything your letter will serve as an inspiration for more people to do the right thing as a matter of honor and integrity and ‘bombardment’ the end result.

Since your email was sent to me in response to the newsletter I sent out I will make sure everyone on that list gets your letter.

As well as this response back to you.  That only seems fair and the right thing to do.

The only thing truth has to fear is concealment.

Thank you,


Jeanne Blackwell


Jeanne Blackwell

SLO Clean Water
The safety of the people is the supreme law. Bacon’s Max. in Reg. 12; Broom’s Max. 1.  Prevention is better than cure. Co. Litt. 304.














SLO Board of Supervisors issues a gag order on fracking opponents.

BOS meeting 05-20-14Tuesday, May 20, 2014,  San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Meeting.

Anxiously and proudly the Students against Fracking, Cuesta and Poly coalition, attended their first Board of Supervisors meeting in the middle of mid terms and finals, to deliver 750 signatures calling for a countywide ban on Fracking and about 20 other persons from all over the county and local grassroots organization SLO Clean Water Action using the public form to deliver 3500 plus signatures collected from county residents and farmers,  people across the State and around the world, calling on the BOS to adopt a countywide ban on Fracking.

I was one of the persons representing local grassroots organization SLOCWA standing with the Students against Fracking.  Bruce Gibson, Chairman of the Board, during a recess approached me.  Why me in particular?   I do not know.  He announced that too many people signed up to speak. I didn’t know what that meant.  Did not know there was a limited number of people allowed to speak in the public comment segment. It’s not posted anywhere.  Gibson further announced to me that only 4 people could speak and time is limited to 3 minutes each. I knew about the 3 minutes. I was hearing limited to 4 speakers for the first time. I was stunned to learn this just minutes before we were due to make our presentation.
Again, why was  he giving me this information and not the entire audience?

Coming from the Chairman of the Board I trusted  this change was something of an  official nature and compliance was the only option. There were more than 4 people who had signed up to speak.  I was sure of that. I had no idea what was regarded as “too many.” I begged for more time. I begged that everyone be allowed to speak.  He was insistent, “No”, he repeated.   5 people I begged. 15 minutes I begged.  My hands grasping his in desperation. Please, I pleaded. Reluctantly he nodded and agreed. I thanked him.

I Begged. I  thanked him.  Not a proud moment.

I only know Mr. Gibson as an official.  When he approached us I assumed it was official business and from the request forms we filled out he knew why we were there.  Also, we were all wearing tee shirts espousing to a countywide ban on Fracking.  There were other green tee shirts in the audience and I wondered if they were  presented with the same directive from Mr. Gibson?   And what about all the people who had filled out speaker slips?  Were they all being informed of this sudden change  that only 5 people total were going to be allowed  to speak?

Public comment is an agenda item.  Addition, subtraction, corrections to an agenda item must come in the form of an addendum which must appear with the agenda.  This is how Item # 19 on May 20th appeared on the agenda.

19. The general public comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the Board on matters within the Board’s purview that are not scheduled on the current agenda. Individuals interested in speaking are asked to fill out a “Board Appearance Request Form” and submit it to the Clerk of the Board prior to the start of general public comment. When recognized by the Chair, each individual speaker may address the Board and is limited to a MAXIMUM of three (3) minutes or a reasonable period of time as determined by the Board Chairperson.

There was no addendum to this Item.


The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Welcomes Your Comments

In the interest of time, a MAXIMUM of three (3) minutes will be reserved for your presentation. Please submit this completed form to the Clerk of the Board prior to the item.

It is requested that you remove your hat in the Board Chambers. please remember to turn off your cell phone while in the board Chambers.

Public Comment remarks should be directed to the Chairman and the Board as a whole and not to any individual thereof. No person will be permitted to make slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any individual.



ISSUE:  Fracking

SIGNATURE:                                                                                           DATE:


May we have your phone number and/or email in case we have follow up questions?

Please note: This is public information and may be disclosed upon request.


Telling us only moments before we were prepared  to make our presentations that a total of  5 speakers were allowed to speak on this agenda item is an addition to item #19. Clearly an addendum was in order. No addendum was posted.


When the meeting resumed,  agenda item #19, public comment was introduced,  Mr. Gibson, rather than calling names from the submitted slips as was the usual procedure, he unexpectedly announced that five unidentified speakers will  come forward, state their names  and time starts ticking.  This was unprecedented. A point of order was in order. Where was county council?  Where were the other Board members?

The Supervisors must have known that their constituents from their districts  there to speak had  just been indiscriminately culled by the Chairman of the Board.  Every supervisor must have known that every person who filled out a request to speak form and will not be called,  was served a gag order by the Chair. They had to know this. It is their job to know these things. It is county councils job to know these things and insure proper legal procedure is adhered to. Not a peep from anyone.

The Chairman speaks for all the members. So unless a supervisor objects, county council or Clerk of the Board calls for a point of order to what the Chairman is doing, it is assumed that it meets with their approval. Silence is consent.

We have to trust at this point that what is about to happen is legal and proper.  Since  those put in charge of making and enforcing the law are allowing this to proceed, then it must be legal with consent and with knowledge.

So here is how it all went down. When Mr. Gibson, who had approached us just moments before, looked in our direction and said “speakers step forward” we assumed this was our cue to do what he instructed us to do.

Heidi Harmon opened the comments, followed by 3 students, David Kooi, Cuesta, Andi Fieber and Lucas Carlow, Cal Poly,  spoke elegantly expressing their concerns about their future and the future of our environment while  delivering 750 + signatures from students calling for a ban. I closed by delivering petitions from local farmers and residents, petitions signed by people from across the State and around the world.  Official letters from the Board’s peers, the San Luis Obispo City Council and the Arroyo Grande City Council, calling on the Board of Supervisors to join us in adopting a countywide ban on fracking insuring our health, safety and well-being.  I included a draft response  to our request for their consideration in the interest of saving staff time which always seems a reason  to delay action.

I had tied the petitions up in a gold bow and as I left the podium to deliver it to the Clerk of the Board across the room, when I hit the center of the room,  I turned to the audience and rather triumphantly waved the petitions in the air. The entire room waved back. We are not allowed to clap or make noises in chambers. Raised hands is accepted protocol to show approval. Every hand I could see was raised to the rafters.

Four other people did come to the podium. I honestly do not recall  their names being called.  But if they were, how did that happen? We were told there was only time for 5 speakers.

At the end of ‘public comment’ Mr. Gibson instructed staff to alert Water Resources Board and the Planning Dept. to look into the fracking issue.  I do not think anyone knew what it was he was instructing them to do or how that was going to qualify as a response to join us in adopting a countywide ban on fracking.  Nonetheless, everyone on the board nodded in agreement to Gibson’s instructions. No one objected. Silence is consent.

Gibson estimated that it would probably be several months before anything will get on the agenda.

I don’t think the Board gets it.  I don’t think they were listening. It was like they had their own private agenda they were carrying out independent of what was taking place at the meeting.   Calling on the Water Resources and the Planning Dept was a totally inappropriate response to, ‘will you join us in adopting a countywide ban on fracking?’

I don’t think they got the message that we are TELLING  them we do not want fracking in this county.  And what we were asking from them was a vote to assure us that they  share our vision of a safe, healthy, happy, livable and prosperous future.

Or, maybe they did hear us.  Maybe they did know exactly what we were saying  and they did respond. They responded with a lie. They told us we cannot speak.  They told us they do not want to hear what we want. They told us they do not care.  And how ironic is that?  That is exactly the same message the oil industry has been sending to every community across this land.  We can lie and we don’t care.

I want to thank the Board.  Now, we get it. We get that you don’t care and you can’t be trusted.  And now it is our turn to respond in kind.  We do care. A lot.  And we will make lying, cheating and the stealing  of our natural resources and quality of life a crime in this county.  We will not be silenced. We will prevail.



BOS meeting 05-20-14



Is Regulating damage the answer to a happy, healthy and safe future?


‘Price Canyon Oilfield Project (Freeport McMoran Oil & Gas)’ notice attached. WHEN: The meeting will be held Wednesday, February 19, 2014 from 6:00 to 8:00 pm. WHERE: The location of the meeting will be at the South County Regional Center, 800 W. Branch St., Arroyo Grande, California. They are going to talk about how much damage frackers can do to the environment and what the privilege will cost them.   Its called pay to play. Nothing new.

Price canyon after Freeport?

It is a very good thing that there are those that do attend these meetings and ask questions. I am not one of them.  At the same time this public notice came to my attention another story about a similiar public hearing taking place in LA came up. They are both about Freeport-McRoRan Gas and Oil.

What I find so extraordinary is that one is a hearing before Fracking (SLO ) and the other is about a hearing after Fracking (West Adams) and the questions being asked are exactly the same. Who’s in charge? It is a little disheartening but at the same time an affirmation that our rights based ordinance is the right thing to do. Why? Because it gives us a right to sue the oil companies for violation of or right to Clean Water and Air. Regulations give the oil companies the right to violate our right to clean water and air.

I am sure the good people of West Adams attended all the public hearings before and asked all the right questions. But now many years later they are back complaining about all the broken promises, violations of the rules and regulations and misinformation that is making their lives miserable.

People, communities don’t have a right to sue for damages and therefore are at the mercy of regulatory agencies to do their bidding for them. That’s what all these hearings are about.

The Oil companies have a right to frack, pollute, rape and pillage at our expense with Loopholes, exemptions and immunities. Without a law asserting our right not to be fracked,  all we have a right to do is beg and plead with the regulatory agencies to, at the very lest look into the damages fracking is causing. They can’t ban it or even stop it, all they can do is regulate the level of harm and fine, penalize  them for going over the legal limit of harm.

These poor people in West Adam  are getting fracked and never had any warning of the unintended consequences. They are desperate. All they want is for it to stop. They are discovering and we should pay close attention to this, that once permission is granted in the form of permits to frack or explore or expand there is no way to revoke permission at least in a timely manner.

It can take years and indeed it has for many of these folks to get any resolution or remedy to all the violations but only if they can prove a violation has even occurred. You would think poisoned ground water, fire-breathing wells, dumps, spills, explosions, sick kids, dead animals, gag orders  would qualify as a violation but that is not how it works.

So just to be clear. This public  hearing is about granting permission, conditional perhaps and with certain stipulations but nonetheless granting permission that will not be revoked if there is a violation of the regulations. They get to keep dumping and spilling and polluting, careless disregard for the rules and regulations because they were just told  “be careful with your operation  or we will cite you for  and give you a stiff fine.”

Even the regulatory agencies don’t have a right to sue for violations. That burden is put on the individual property owners, homeowners, businesses, farms, which of course haven’t got a leg to stand under current laws, rules and regulations. Fracking is legal. So, trying to prove they are doing something illegal and expect to get restitution is all but impossible and the process will bankrupt you either way.

Our County wide Community Bill of Rights and Water Protection Act gives us and our partner, Mother Nature, legal standing and the right to sue the oil companies for violations of our right to clean water, clean air, and a safe and healthy environment for now and in the future. lawsuits are the order of the day. This guarantees we, the people and Mother Nature can sue if our rights are violated. This i a game changer. This evens up the score and cuts out the middle men and  Loopholes.  It’s our land, our water, our air, our oil and we have a right to say NO!!  There will be a lawsuit when this ordinance goes into effect but it will us suing the oil companies for even thinking about using trespassing on our right to a clean, healthy safe environment.

PXP, original operators of the Price canyon oilfields, was bought up by Freeport-McMoRan Oil and Gas. FMOG is a multi-billion dollar transnational corporation that has been in business over a 100 years. KCET reported Freeport’s reputations was so bad that, in 2012, they were nominated for “Worst Corporation on Earth” at the Public Eye Awards in Davos.Freeport has a reputation for misconduct and hellish environmental violations.

Is a company’s reputation taken into consideration upon the permitting process?  NO it isn’t. Even when we are talking about them moving in and sharing the same air, water and space we are all depending on and are using right now, their past deeds are not a consideration.   Forgive me for not believing for one second that they are going to turn over a new leaf and be outstanding neighbors.

Just saying folks that if in fact we can’t take their reputation into consideration at this point and we are being asked to just ignore their past then we have conceded our right to complain or call foul down the road. Evidence of this fact is what is taking place at the LA hearings in West Adam right now.It is not the planning, zoning, air quality control board, water boards or California Coastal Commission’s job to do background checks on businesses. All they need to do is verify that the company applying for a permit  has a valid current business license to operate.

And as we all know for a fact even the worst companies with the worst environmental records and reputations NEVER get their business licenses revoked. BP is going strong so is EXXON, CHEVRON, SHELL, all associated with major disasters. The worst that can happen to them if an ‘accident’ happens  is they are issued citations, not even a cease and desist order, just pay the fine and go about your business. Sure lawsuits are flying all over the place, lawyers get rich and still the birds and wildlife in the gulf are dying.  Oil is still oozing in Prince Williams Alaska from the Exxon Valdez spill  and here in San Luis Obispo county Avila Beach oozes oil from the spill in the late 1990s. Unocal began the cleanup of decades old oil seepage discovered years earlier from corroding pipes under the township, and which had caused a massive and toxic oil spill under the town. They razed the town.

Tank farm explosion  in San Luis Obispo April 1926 , 8,000,000  barrels of oil spilled, burned, escaped into the creeks, rivers, underground. Its a toxic waste area. “Nearly a century has passed, and we are still dealing with contamination issues,” Garcia a Chevon spokesperson said.

So what to do? Only one thing to do. It is our job, our duty, our responsibility to assert our right to life as only clean air and water can provide. And how do we do that? With a game changer. A rights based Community Bill of Rights and Water Protection ordinance that’s how.    But time is running out. Every public hearing gets Freeport closer to their goal of occupying our communal life support systems, air, water and soil.

Our goal is a countywide ban on Fracking and every city, municipality that sends a letter to the Board of Supervisors calling on them to agree to a adopt a countywide ban on fracking is getting us one step closer to our goal to KEEP the FRACK OUT of SLO.

Arroyo Grande has taken the first steps to getting their letter from their City Council. They are doing it!!!   MEETING IN ARROYO GRANDE FEB. 25, 2014 . The address for the AG City Council meeting is 215 E. Branch St. (Village of AG, across the street from Gina’s and Rooster Creek restaurants. ) It was formerly the fire station and has a large, 6 foot diameter clock on the outside of the building.  Meeting time is promptly at 6pm. Tuesday, Feb 25th. Map  Show up, show support, wave hands, don’t have to speak, being there is a big big deal. Let’s raze our collective selves every time a city takes the bold stand to call on the BOS.

Calling on Gov Brown to Ban Fracking before we have actually done it ourselves in a way seems like passing the buck especially if we really expect him to do it. Which I don’t expect he will. I hope I am wrong.  What is preventing us from getting letters from 5 cities, CSD, to the Board of Supervisors before we leave on March 15 to call on Brown?

Three other counties in the State have already committed to countywide bans slated for  the Nov. ballot. They will be protected from any renegade fracking operation wanting to stake a claim while under all the protections of  federal exemptions and absent State regs.  It’s a free for all out there right now and it is like they don’t exist and are invisible until something goes terribly wrong and then

it is too late.

And don’t forget the Nipomo spur extension. They want to bring in Tar Sands Oil from Canada by rail road cars instead of a pipeline.  Above ground, below ground, its all dangerous and we can live without It.  Regulating doesn’t make it safer but banning does.