Exxon Mobile CEO Sues To Stop Fracking Near His Texas Ranch

[boutons_deux]

Really? That's your takeaway?

You think NIMBY is exclusive to the CEO of Exxon?

You don't pocket $10Ms from that nuclear plant built within view.

Tillerson does pocket $100Ms from fracking Other Peoples Lives.

[EVAY]

Really? That's your takeaway?

You think NIMBY is exclusive to the CEO of Exxon?

Do you have the moral honesty to admit that you are a NIMBY too?

I love electricity. I really do.

I'd be a mad mother er if they built a power plant right next to my house/ranch after they explicitly told me they wouldn't.

I understand that we need to assist the homeless somehow.

Would you have liked them to build the "Haven For The Hopeless" right next door to your home? Crazy drug addled mother ers harassing your children for money as they wait for the school bus?

Admit it. you are a NIMBY too.

Oh, come on,now…you can't possibly be equating a normal run-of-the-mill "I like electricity but don't want to live next to the power station" with what this guy did and said about the "government regulations making it harder for america's energy independence blah blah blah blah blah" bloviations.

Yeah, that is exactly my take-away.

And yes, while I am much more willing to contribute to a homeless person's food and/or clothing and/or housing needs than I am to house myself right next to him/her, I also don't make public pronouncements that homelessness is blah blah blah blah either.

Come on, man. This is guy is in a different league.

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually, I can equate it. The guy obviously did his homework. He anticipated the potential problem and had it in writing that they were going to do a low rise tank. They lied to him. He was well within his rights to litigate. You can't pick and choose. Take his right away because you don't like his profession or politics and you take yours away too.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, I can equate it. The guy obviously did his homework. He anticipated the potential problem and had it in writing that they were going to do a low rise tank. They lied to him. He was well within his rights to litigate. You can't pick and choose. Take his right away because you don't like his profession or politics and you take yours away too.

This is exactly what they are doing, and worse yet, making them out to be the bad guys over it.

[ElNono]

Actually, I can equate it. The guy obviously did his homework. He anticipated the potential problem and had it in writing that they were going to do a low rise tank. They lied to him. He was well within his rights to litigate. You can't pick and choose. Take his right away because you don't like his profession or politics and you take yours away too.

I'm calling BS. This is the guy that can't stop telling everyone how good this is for America, but the whines and sues under some BS name when he can't stand some of the byproduct of what he's preaching about.

He might not be wrong in his claim, but he's an hypocrite.

[pgardn]

Actually, I can equate it. The guy obviously did his homework. He anticipated the potential problem and had it in writing that they were going to do a low rise tank. They lied to him. He was well within his rights to litigate. You can't pick and choose. Take his right away because you don't like his profession or politics and you take yours away too.

Sure he is within his rights.

But it's so laughably hypocritical...
You don't see that?
Seriously, the truck noise at least?

Legally he is solid, that's not what people find astounding. These people in small towns having their roads torn up, I think they empathize with his plight, and laugh at the irony.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm calling BS. This is the guy that can't stop telling everyone how good this is for America, but the whines and sues under some BS name when he can't stand some of the byproduct of what he's preaching about.

He might not be wrong in his claim, but he's an hypocrite.

We have to disagree here. This wouldn't still be going on after 2 years if the claims were bull .

[ElNono]

smdh

[pgardn]

smdh

he might not be wrong with his claim...

That part, that part, it's just damn difficult.
To read.

[ElNono]

he might not be wrong with his claim...

That part, that part, it's just damn difficult.
To read.

obtuseness

[dbestpro]

Supplying water for fracking is much more a nuisance than the fracking itself. One well is no big deal (One near my land in Frio county), but the constant movement of trucks getting water is a big deal. This is why most of these water access points are off of middle to major roadways. Its like working for HEB, living in a neighborhood, and Walmart decides to put a distribution center next to your house. You're in retail, but it does not mean you want your neighborhood destroyed to support the needs of retail. There would be a better place for the distribution center, just as there is, I am sure, a better location for the water tower.

[vy65]

^ on that link you provided:

"Furthermore, upon information and belief, BWSC will sell water to oil and gas explorers for frac[k]ing shale formations leading to traffic with heavy trucks on FM 407, creating a noise nuisance and traffic hazards."

That's an unfortunate aside.

I quickly read the pe ion, and they're really suing to stop construction of an eye-sore water tank. Will it have o/g development applications? Allegedly. Is said development the object of the lawsuit? Absolutely not.

[vy65]

To remind those of you who fly off the handle without understanding all the facts...

This lawsuit is about the change in property value and noise, based on the water tower height and the constant truck traffic.

The fracking is not in the immediate area. This part of the operation is not mentioned in the lawsuit. If I am wrong, please show me. I have linked the lawsuit, so have at it.

There's very little truck traffic associated with fraccing. That traffic usually lasts 6-8 weeks while the well is being fracced. Once completed, the fracced well is hooked into a pipeline, and the traffic goes away.

His claims fail, probably as a matter of law, if he's basing them on traffic.

[CosmicCowboy]

There's very little truck traffic associated with fraccing. That traffic usually lasts 6-8 weeks while the well is being fracced. Once completed, the fracced well is hooked into a pipeline, and the traffic goes away.

His claims fail, probably as a matter of law, if he's basing them on traffic.

Not if the water tower is selling water to every well drilled in the area. It would be ongoing traffic for the next 20 years.

[boutons_deux]

There's very little truck traffic associated with fraccing. That traffic usually lasts 6-8 weeks while the well is being fracced. Once completed, the fracced well is hooked into a pipeline, and the traffic goes away.

His claims fail, probably as a matter of law, if he's basing them on traffic.

then why are road in Eagle Ford being torn up by truck traffic? trucks for chemicals, water, pipe, fuel, etc, etc.

[vy65]

then why are road in Eagle Ford being torn up by truck traffic? trucks for chemicals, water, pipe, fuel, etc, etc.

Because wells are constantly being drilled and/or fracced? Operators not using pipeline/midstream services?

What evidence do you have for "road" being "torn up?"

[Wild Cobra]

Because wells are constantly being drilled and/or fracced? Operators not using pipeline/midstream services?

What evidence do you have for "road" being "torn up?"

What evidence does he ever have?

[vy65]

Not if the water tower is selling water to every well drilled in the area. It would be ongoing traffic for the next 20 years.

Where are you getting this from? Especially the 20 years part?

[Wild Cobra]

Where are you getting this from? Especially the 20 years part?

Sounds right to me.

Just how long is a fracking site expected to be good for? Then, like any other, move a short distance and continue.

[boutons_deux]

Because wells are constantly being drilled and/or fracced? Operators not using pipeline/midstream services?

What evidence do you have for "road" being "torn up?"

some months ago, there were roads in Eagle Ford so torn up and expensive to repair, the STATE proposed to rip up the destroyed blacktop and leave them unpaved.

[vy65]

some months ago, there were roads in Eagle Ford so torn up and expensive to repair, the STATE proposed to rip up the destroyed blacktop and leave them unpaved.

And your evidence for this is?

Couldn't it be that hardly used dirt roads are actually being used now?

The question isn't whether there's an increase in truck traffic. The question is whether it's legally actionable.

[Wild Cobra]

And your evidence for this is?

Couldn't it be that hardly used dirt roads are actually being used now?

The question isn't whether there's an increase in truck traffic. The question is whether it's legally actionable.

If it wasn't legally actionable, this wouldn't have gone on since 2012. There are judges that agree this needs to go to trial.

[vy65]

Jesus WC, how big of a ing sycophant are you?

[boutons_deux]

And your evidence for this is?

holy , you really should not with me for "evidence"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/1...ck-of-funding/

http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/201...le-ford-shale/

[Wild Cobra]

Jesus WC, how big of a ing sycophant are you?

That doesn't apply.

Why does your bias jump to that conclusion.

Did you read the facts of the case?

Are you choosing your opinion based on your dislike for these people?

I think you should take a good, hard look at yourself. It sure doesn't look very ethical from my viewpoint.