It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should Natrual Gas Companies be forced to live in communities they claim they do not harm?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:57 PM
Do you think that if business interest have any investment that could impact communities should they live in the communities that they claim harmless methods?


Shell Oil Company President Marvin Odum discussed jobs from drilling in Alaska, onshore natural gas production and oil exploration.

Should investors, future traders,commerce officials, land development boards, marketers and chair boards
live in the policies they claim that are safe?

Should their investments be limited to the areas that they live in to conduct fair local commerce?

I think its a fair method that they will include their family's to safe exposure they are ok with.

I want to know what you think?

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:01 PM
reply to post by spritualextendsemail

I am sure you are getting to the point to stop fracking right?? They should offer an alternative to that also, for people like you who don't want fracking in this world....Let whoever doesn't want fracking oil/natural gas around to make those people STOP using natural gas or oil.....GOOD LUCK

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by spritualextendsemail

All this would encourage them to do is build a luxurious vacation house in the "community" and write up a extravagent insurance policy on the house and property with their insurance buddies that compensated them for all the damage their company was going to cause to the community, they wouldn't actually live their daily lives at the house in the community they would just "pretend" to...

edit to add: also if it was "manditory" for them to live in the area their company works in, they could then have a legitimate reason to wright all their property taxes living costs off as "business related" since it was manditory they live there...

sometimes good ideas are bad ideas

There is always a loophole...

edit on 20-6-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by Sly1one

Yeah and on top of that, if you give that power to the government where would it stop??? They don't need anymore than they have already!!

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by spritualextendsemail

I wonder if the “deep ecology” movement and its adherents and leaders should similarly be subjected to the results of their advocacy. This would include the following:

1.Being the first to go hungry when food runs low
2.Being the last to get that dose of antibiotics when they are sick
3.Being the first to have their power shut off when the blackouts come

It works both way you know.

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:09 PM
I think it would be nice if the government officials that give the companies free reign over such large areas to drill and frack with very little oversight had to live there too.

Some state legislators do, but they can afford to move out, using the loot that they have collected from the gas companies.

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:18 PM
If a community breeches its agreements to a company they are liable why shouldn't the individuals be liable too?

There is a cost of doing business that is not always seen. Most of these areas are decorpratized without any local

services or renewed interest to the trade agendas?

Why should local communities be sympathetic to corporate needs when the markets disenfranchised all the areas?

Stock market rule on areas that have no vested interest to them till now? Why should they have it so easy now?
edit on 20-6-2011 by spritualextendsemail because: 1

new topics

top topics


log in