Judge rules Shell cannot dismiss claims that fracking is an "ultra hazardous activity,"

source www.courthousenews.com...

The claim stems from a lawsuit Edward Kamuck filed against Shell Energy Holdings GP in August 2011. Kamuck says the energy giant's fracking operation on land neighboring his 93-acre tract in rural Pennsylvania constitutes "an abnormally dangerous and ultra hazardous activity," and that Shell should be subjected to strict liability for "the contamination and pollution caused by ... releases, spills, sprays, emissions, discharges and flowback of hazardous chemicals and combustible gases." Calling himself a "totally disabled" Vietnam war veteran, Kamuck says Shell's operation contaminated his land and water supply.

It only took one person to take a stand and refuse to sign an amended lease.

Hope this ends with a victory and sets a precedent but what about the rights of adjacent property owners who signed the lease amendment? The issue thus seems to go beyond just fracking.

reply to post by oghamxx


this could be very good or very bad
the case will set precedence so if this man can prove that his land is contaminated with chemicals used in the fracking process and could have only come from that process this will be a huge win for the entire world
however because this is only one man with limited resources its going to be an uphill battle and should he lose it will set precedence that these oil companies involved in fracking are not liable for the enormous damages that result from their greed and willingness to use extraordinarily unsafe methods to squeeze every last drop of oil from the lands they are permitted to extract from

it ultimately comes down to how corrupt the courts will be and if thats what it comes to i and this guy needs money to fight the case i will donate to see that these people are held responsible