Families Sue Frackers for $120 Million

page: 1
11

log in

join

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:59 AM
link   
This is one conspiracy about to get blown open, and it's about time. People have been waiting for ONE big thing to happen. Many many people have been waiting very very patiently. It's finally happened.


CONWAY, Ark. (CN) - Eight families sued a natural gas company for personal injuries they attribute to its fracking operations, which emit half a pound of toxic emissions per minute, 24 hours a day, year round.

The lawsuit comes two days after a Texas jury awarded $3 million in damages for fracking there, in what is believed to be the first jury award of its kind. Gas companies customarily settle such claims confidentially, or fight them vigorously, often with help from complaisant legislatures.


Oh...and where is some of that pollution coming from? Why.....it's not ALL going into the ground!


"The compressor stations emit huge amounts of methane and hydrogen sulfide, as well as other flammable, malodorous and noxious gases, chemicals and compounds, directly into the air. These substances are emitted are then allowed to flow freely off of the compressor station property and into the surrounding air and atmosphere."
Courthouse News

I posted this thread: Families Blame Fracking For Destructive Quakes back in December, but these are different people in a different town. Different names.

Fracking, or however it's changed and evolved over time, isn't the solution to anything but too many living people and not enough Earthquakes. If those are the problems, then it will solve them over time. If we consider living people a good thing and earthquakes a bad thing, I think we need to start watching these cases now that they've lost one.

Like the movie Runaway Jury says in it's fictional fight against gun makers, mirroring real cases. ONE...that is the magic number and all that matters to anyone in the world, for this industry. The Number One. That is how many cases needed to win a full term jury verdict to set a precedent of sorts and put the fear of more jury verdicts into gas companies everywhere.

Public - ONE
Gas - 0

It's a very good start!




posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

What is the general consensus on fracking in the US. Is it seen as a good thing because it's bringing your energy costs down or are environmental hazards seen as more of a concern.

There is a lot of testing going on in the UK for potential fracking sites. The argument is that it will bring our energy bills down , like it has in the US and that environmental damage is negligible considering the potential benefits.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: woodwardjnr

Is spending less fake money worth more than the earth we rely on to live?

Fracking, like most methods of securing fossil fuels, is dirty.

I would rather find alternative sources of energy myself.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I completely, 100%, disagree with Wrabbit2000, on this issue. The EPA, and various other groups have officially come out with low to no environmental impact from Fracking.

In fact, as proven in Col., where environmentalist had 'proven' pollution from fracking turned out to be present in the water in an earlier test PREVIOUS to fracking ever starting.

It's unclear whether the environmentalist were aware of that test or not. Suspicion abounds , however.

There are numerous examples of "exaggerations' by the environmentalist movement over the decades as well as valid ones.

In this case, there are numerous vested interest against fracking, both in the U.S., big oil with their reserves losing well head value, to outside U.S. interests, Russia, Saudi Arabia et al who also lose profit due to the fracking boom.

At the worst, the jury is still out a on fracking. At best, this is an amazing development for the U.S. economy, jobs created and the future survival of the nation.

I, for one, do not believe the environmentalists on this one in the slightest.

P.S. spare me the "Links" crap as well. Forwarding other peoples vested interests is no proof in my books.

If the EPA, certainly no friend of oil, cannot find a single piece of evidence supporting these claims, then anyone promoting otherwise..is .....



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: woodwardjnr

What is the general consensus on fracking in the US. Is it seen as a good thing because it's bringing your energy costs down or are environmental hazards seen as more of a concern.


It seems an area in transition. There have been cases come and cases the gas industry has lost in Ohio, New York and recently, the Supreme Court in Wyoming. So, as courts are starting to get these cases into the higher levels, and we're seeing the cases go badly? I think it'll start changing some things.

One of the issues here is that it isn't JUST hydraulic fracturing to recover gas. That's just HALF of what they are doing, and probably the lesser half of real future threat or damage. It's the forced pumping of toxic waste and goo back down the hole into the fractured bedrock that I take the most issue with. They have all kinds of ideas and methods they swear will keep the toxic ooze safely "sequestered"...but to look around and again, where actual damages are coming into court rooms now? That whole sequestration thing doesn't seem to be working out quite as advertised.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000



*Rolls hands together, "Good, good...."



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000
Sad but the truth is public 1 big industry's ( including gas ) some many points no one counts any more. There is just so much money to be made that a few people, ( in reality millions ) dieing means nothing. Look at cell phones, everyone know they are harm full but still we use them. WE THE PEOPLE can never win because we do it to our selfs



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

What is the general consensus on fracking in the US. Is it seen as a good thing because it's bringing your energy costs down or are environmental hazards seen as more of a concern.

There is a lot of testing going on in the UK for potential fracking sites. The argument is that it will bring our energy bills down , like it has in the US and that environmental damage is negligible considering the potential benefits.


I sure haven't seen any energy prices go down, but I have seen the number and magnitude of earthquakes go up!
Just like GMO's, it's being implemented on a massive scale with no data on the long-term possibilities. We just have to 'wait and see' what the end results will be.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I completely, 100%, disagree with Wrabbit2000, on this issue. The EPA, and various other groups have officially come out with low to no environmental impact from Fracking.

In fact, as proven in Col., where environmentalist had 'proven' pollution from fracking turned out to be present in the water in an earlier test PREVIOUS to fracking ever starting.

It's unclear whether the environmentalist were aware of that test or not. Suspicion abounds , however.

There are numerous examples of "exaggerations' by the environmentalist movement over the decades as well as valid ones.

In this case, there are numerous vested interest against fracking, both in the U.S., big oil with their reserves losing well head value, to outside U.S. interests, Russia, Saudi Arabia et al who also lose profit due to the fracking boom.

At the worst, the jury is still out a on fracking. At best, this is an amazing development for the U.S. economy, jobs created and the future survival of the nation.

I, for one, do not believe the environmentalists on this one in the slightest.

P.S. spare me the "Links" crap as well. Forwarding other peoples vested interests is no proof in my books.

If the EPA, certainly no friend of oil, cannot find a single piece of evidence supporting these claims, then anyone promoting otherwise..is .....



So.. on one hand you say there are valid arguments for and against fracking, and that the jury is still out. What is it? Bad or good?

Sure it may have "economic" benefits for now, but what about the future and the grandchildren? In today's world people seem mostly concerned with the here and now, not the long term consequences and what kind of world their grandchildren will be faced with



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Frakking bringing down the price of utility bills is a myth. My natural gas and electric bills are higher than ever. Anyone see a decrease in your bills? Is this safe?

Here is a good documentary on frakking:


So were fracturing the crust to extract natural gas, only a profit driving nuts would think this was a good idea. Were drilling holes into the crust then pumping millions of gallons of a toxic mixture to build up pressure till the crust fractures..... And its considered safe by the industry and the paid off government.
edit on 28-4-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I don't think fracking on the scale we are doing it is good. Fracturing the crust of the earth and allowing trapped toxins to move around is not a good idea. Water is more important than natural gas. We waste way too much, that is the problem that needs to be addressed. We need to simplify our living instead of believing in the wasteful conditioning of consumerism and planned obsolescence. We must learn to be satisfied with our needs and not waste so much.

Look at the numbers of fracking sites, they are going crazy. Moderation is what is important and also we must watch where the fracking is done to lessen the impact on groundwater. We are on a slipslide in the direction of destroying our environment, that needs to stop.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Philippines

I said the jury was still out. Not that there were "valid" points for or against. I do see points for, obviously. On the bad points I am unconvinced. That doesn't mean I can't be or won't change my mind but I surely do not trust the left, environmentalist, vested interests on this subject.

The hate for the oil industry is almost pathological. Every move by the industry seems to be automatically evil or destructive or bad for the environment. It's impossible for everything connected to oil to be bad all the time. Nothing is THAT bad. LOL.

As far as future generations are concerned, I am a father and a grandfather and my concerns for them lie in governmental issues far, far more than environmental ones. (Much improvement in the environment, things much worse in gov't connected issues.)

I have seen much improvement over the decades-needed ones-and appreciate them. Yet when no clear cut evidence is apparent, when the EPA doesn't wade in on it after the first claims were debunked in Pa., when people, such as yourself push the what about the kids "button", when it starts sounding like the "global warming" craze-temps have flat-lined for the last 15 years- then that's when I say hold it!!

Do I trust the oil industry? HELL NO. Do I trust the Environmental movement? HELL NO. I surely don't trust the families "suing" in the slightest either, for that matter.

I hope that clarifies my view on it..



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000
Being deeply involved in the industry, I can tell you - 'They Don't Care'.
It is the most wasteful, inefficient, egotistical bunch of vampires on the planet (perhaps, with the exception of Government).
This is just one reason that I do not trust "Scientists". Who's paying your salary? Then we know how/what you'll find.
How can governmental institutions be trusted with oversight of this industry, when they are, likewise, one of the greatest beneficiaries therefrom?
They don't even care if they kill their own in the process of fattening their bank accounts.





new topics
top topics
 
11

log in

join