It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Insurance company decides it won't cover damages caused by fracking...

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SilentKoala
 


Or Rather,
orders food. pays for food, eats food, uses restroom, customer asks for rebate, Taco Mart says, due to the grease content in food we cannot give you a refund, now go pack sand

edit on 14-7-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I think this is just for the people that own land and lease the rights to frack to another company.... people are stupid and don't know what they are getting in to. When methane is coming out of the water pipes and everything else is wrong with the property after leasing fracking rights to a company the retards will probably want to sue, then the insurance company gets involved.

It's just so the insurance company can remove themselves in these situations between stupid asshole people and stupid asshole companies.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by jdub297
 


actually, I live in coal country, probably have a better chance of one of the mining companies blowing the top off a mountain and waking up to the sound of a boulder coming through the roof...
over on the other side of these mountains, in west virginia, they have a more mountain top mining. I am not sure even if it's legal to do it in virginia at the present moment even, but many in west virginia are voicing opposition to the mines, and, it's not because they just don't want it in their backyard!! the bolders do occasionally fly down on people's homes!!


Well, those worries should be behind you as well. NPR ran stories yesterday and today about the closing of coal mines all over the area.
www.npr.org...
www.npr.org...

I doubt jobless or homeless former miners will be dropping any rocks or amything else productive in the area anymore.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JizzyMcButter
I think this is just for the people that own land and lease the rights to frack to another company.... people are stupid and don't know what they are getting in to. When methane is coming out of the water pipes and everything else is wrong with the property after leasing fracking rights to a company the retards will probably want to sue, then the insurance company gets involved.

It's just so the insurance company can remove themselves in these situations between stupid asshole people and stupid asshole companies.


No legitimate insurance company will issue a liability policy to an unqualified driller, just as they will not insure a drunk driver or skydivers, et c.

Nationwide has a reputation for only insuring risks they can underwrite for a big profit. Too many claims (legit or not) = no big profit, they still have to defend even fraudulent claims.
Why bother?



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


as far as I know the trains are still running with car after car after car filled with coal!! no one has explained to me yet, the coal is here, the power plant is here, just how is it more evironmentally friendly to ship the fuel from god's knows where here than it is to just use the coal?? what are supposed to be using? natural gas obtained through fracking, which presents a big question mark as to what the environmental damage would be, or oil?? ya, I am sure that the coal being burned is causing more damages than the oil tanker spills!! not to mention the fuel that is burnt to get the oil here, the radioactivity that is being let loose while they have their wars with their depleted uranium arsenal to protect that oil, and on and on....
hey, I know we can just go back to burning wood!! oh wait a minute, that poses a who mess of environmental issues itself!!!
the issue with the coal is just the gov't following an agenda that is destined to make some very rich people even richer! it's based more on how can we enrich our buddies more than it's based on actual logic!

by the way, the first week I was in this area I opened a newspaper and there was a story about a small child being killed when a large boulder came crashing down on his crib while he slept. we live in the middle of the valley, far enough away from any of the mountains, just in case....

I do love the mountains though, would very upset if someone came along and started blowing the tops off of them. so aren't many of the people who are living in west virginia! I am sure there are safe ways to get the coal, I am sure there are safe ways to get the natural gas, there are clean ways to use both...it might cost more, but in the long run, well...we might all live longer in the end!!!



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


the power plant is here, just how is it more evironmentally friendly to ship the fuel from god's knows where here than it is to just use the coal?? what are supposed to be using? natural gas obtained through fracking, which presents a big question mark as to what the environmental damage would be, or oil??


First, if your power is coming from a coal-fired plant, it will soon be closing or will be modified to come into compliance with the new EPA regs. Either way, you lose.

If you read the links you'd know that EPA regs caused the cost of coal production/use to raise the price to the point that it is no longer profitable to mine there. You'd also know that power is being shifted from the old coal-fired plants to newer gas and steam turbine plants, such as the one in Atlanta. It used to take a 100-car train of coal each day. Today, there aren't even any tracks because of gas and steam turbines.

Second, fracking has lowered the cost of gas from being twice that of coal to being 1/5th of coal, so plants are using it as a fuel where they can. Many plants have the ability to use alternative fuels, or havve switched to gas exclusively.

So, we are back to the original question/issue, aren't we?

With all that fracking, which since 2007 has spread to more than 36 states, how many confirmed incidents of "environmental damage" are you aware of? What was the damage and what were the results?
You acknolwedge "a big question mark" exists here; so what is the real issue?

How did insurance figure into the issues anywhere? (The real oint of this thread, no?)

What if we all just went off the grid? Would that be the best solution for your family?

I don't think you or the "activists" are willing to acknowledge that as a society becomes richer, it becomes cleaner; an easily demonstrated fact.

Good luck in the dark .
edit on 15-7-2012 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



actually, I do acknowledge that, wood is really a worse option than coal, coal is really a worse option than oil ect...
each and every alternative we have has it's drawbacks, it has advantages also. and I didn't need to read your links to know anything. our power company has already let us know, our cost for electricity will be going up because of the rules made up in washington. rules that were based on the psuedoscience that is called global warming. there must be alot of human we aren't aware of though, since well, the whole solar system seems to be warming up!!! there must be humans on all those other planets also, burning those fossil fuels, right??

like I said before, I just though that the news would interest some.
and well the gov't powers will claim a chemical is so dangerous it needs to be banned when in the form of a cigarette, but in then, it's perfectly safe if one works immersed in it 40 hours a week...... I can still see where both the insurance company and the fracking company could get off the hook if something did go wrong.....

fracking isn't my expertise, as if anything is, so no, I don't know of any proven cases. heard alot of claims.
but then, how many times have you heard about printers suffering from the side effects of being exposed to vinyl chloride?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 

You may be surprised to learn that I am quite familiar with chemical exposure and human suffering.
I am also aware of predatory "quacks" who beleive that exposure to almost anything can cause illness and "syndromes" that only they can detect and treat. At great expense.

I was raised in between the chemical refineries of the Gulf Coast and the great farmlands of Central and West Texas. Both areas are home to millions of people who benefit from and have been harmed by chemicals.
I chose my career, in part, to see that people who needed help got it and that those who harmed others paid the price.

I beleive that we live in difficult times, but that they are better than those my parents, grandparents and great-granparents endured. Part of that is the result of the increased knowledge and wealth that industry and advancement bestow upon society as a whole.

Life is not without risks, and we should not create more risk than necessary for the success of any endeavor.
Unfortunately, risks must be taken if we are to learn from our mistakes and share the experience gained for the benefit of others.

Marie Curie helped discover the powers of radioactivity, but her experimentation led to her death. Jonas Salk discovered processes that have saved untolled millions of lives; but he did it by experimenting upon himself and others.

I understnd and respect your concern for your family and your community; but we should do what we can to learn what we can if we are to fairly assess the risks we face and the ones over which we have some control.

good luck.
jw

edit on 16-7-2012 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Just a little more information on the subject from www.onenewsnow.com...

David Stein, president of LJ Stein & Company, says Nationwide has never been a company that's worked in the oil and gas industry.

"The memo that leaked was just a clarification that says, 'Hey, look, if you get a contracting risk in underwriting for a company that may be used to haul stone or something like that, but now is going to be hauling brine and/or things like that, we're not in the natural gas industry. We've never been in the natural gas industry and we don't intend to be there,'" Stein explains.

He says the same can be said for AllState, Progressive or State Farm, adding that there is an entirely different set of insurance companies that participate in that industry, including his company, which deals with the Northern Appalachian region.

That said, OneNewsNow did pose the question as to whether Stein is out to promote his business.

"No. In fact, the Nationwide response clarified that they've never been in the oil or natural gas industry," he tells OneNewsNow. "Likewise, we wouldn't expect Nationwide to write aviation risks, but that doesn't mean that Nationwide thinks that airplanes are somehow a problem for the United States."



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join