The Eagle Ford has barely been tapped. Right now they are still doing "proving" wells and will continue to come back and fill in for the next 20 years. The current limitation is drilling rigs. They are all operating 24/7. I know on a friends ranch they have only drilled one well (which is a great producer) but that is only one well on 1500 acres. They can drill a well every 60 acres. That's 24 more wells on just one relatively small ranch over the next decade or two. Thus, your 20 years.
It's the hypocrisy, vy. This is a guy that will tell to anyone that listens that regulating fracking is evil, while he lines up his pockets with it. But then turns around and whines that, among other things, *potential* fracking activity near his property will cause noise nuisances and traffic hazards, and wants the government (town in this case) to step in and stop it.
We are all hypocrites to one degree or another.
I'm involved in this kind of litigation. If he were really complaining about fraccing, he'd have a laundry list of personal injury claims, along with a claim for trespass and negligence. I didn't spend much time reading the complaint, but it doesn't seem like he's really suing for the kind of thing that'd make him a hypocrite.
If the lawyer amended the pe ion to remove that one sentence you quoted, would you have the same concern?
Do you always ASSume the worse motives in people?
I've been looking at the addresses in the lawsuit. Streetview has an absolute pristine skyline. No power lines, no buildings, towers, etc. Only the buildings on the personal properties are visible. Considering people often buy a property based on location and view, what makes it right to affect them? Because you don't like them? Look for yourself. Find any point on Roadrunner rd or Dove creek rd.
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.0...gl=us&t=h&z=15
'Do you always ASSume the worse motives in people?"
assuming BigCarbon, 1%, etc have the worst motives for everything and everybody but themselves is high percentage assumption
lol google map stalking again
It's not the lawsuit I have a problem with, it's the hypocrisy of advocating one thing when it lines up your pocket and doesn't affect you, then turning around and start whining when it does affect him (and potentially takes money away from the same pocket).
Removing that sentence from the lawsuit or suing under his own name at this point is immaterial, because he already expressed what he thinks, and the merit of the lawsuit isn't what concerns me at all.
sure CC... but, AFAIK, our hypocrisy doesn't affect hundreds or thousands of people.
Make fun of someone actually using an online resource to see if the claim is true or not?
Does this mean you are against uncovering the truth?
I'm sorry that you see that as funny.
When's the last time you checked your ethics?
I'm having a conversation with the adults in the room, you can wait outside WC...
You are assigning hypocrisy to something that looks perfectly legitimate.
Do you have facts in this case we don't?
Maybe you should go testify when the court date is set.
LOL...
OK boy, I will leave the treehouse fort.
lmao this clown
I forget. You didn't grow up here. It is sort of an American tradition that kids build treehouses and pretend to be important. parents often left them alone to pretend, until dinner time.
Ignoring me doesn't make the truth go away, and your biased hatred is amazingly strong.
Do you really consider it OK to engage in deformation of character, just because you don't like someone? Where are you facts that this is hypocritical instead of what the lawsuit says?
lol truth
lol dumbo
"deformation of character"
keep talking
No.keep talking
I don't want to drive you to insanity.
Deformation of character is up there with this bimbo at Alamo Drafthouse telling me she got sentenced to angry management after assaulting her boyfriend
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
