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.

 

This is Golden: "Don't Frack In my Backyard" - Exxon CEO, Rex Tillerson

page: 2
112
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Whoever thought it would be a good idea to fracture the Earths crust under our feet has to be insane. I fear there are many other side effects of fracting we haven't seen yet. Doesn't lava rise up through the Earths crust through week spots in the crusts and were making the crust weaker for profit.
edit on 24-2-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by iRoyalty
 


Great find! F&S for the OP!

Without a doubt, this guy is a hypocritical prick of the highest order. But then, I've come to expect nothing less from those who support fracking.

I also noticed some posters asking, "how is this kind of thing even allowed?" or "why don't the people rise up in mass against this process?"

Well, there are several answers, (or should I say "methods") being utilized by the energy producers to quell that uprising at every turn. Some of which are mentioned in the source articles.

Things like "non-disclosure agreements" which IMO, should be completely outlawed. How can it be even remotely moral to ban someone from telling others the truth about how energy producers are polluting our environment? This process of silencing those who are the most directly affected by these practices only serves to keep the public in the dark. They can't talk about how these chemicals killed their livestock, they can't talk about how these chemicals destroyed their health, they can't talk about the fact that their water catches fire, etc....

The use of non-disclosure agreements is really nothing more than legalized suppression of the truth and it must be stopped! Furthermore, the same could be said of the way that energy companies are allowed to maintain secrecy around the list of chemicals being utilized in their fracking fluids under the guise of "proprietary information."

I can put sh#t in the water that may or may not pollute it, but I can't tell you what I put in there because it's a company secret. Really?

How are doctors supposed to be able to treat the sick if they don't know what caused the illness? How is the EPA supposed to be able to determine the source of a toxic pollutant if that source has the right to secrecy? How can we determine who should be responsible to clean up a polluted site if we don't know who put the pollutant there in the first place?

Now, what kind of an asshole would even come up with this kind of legislation? Oh yeah, we can thank dear ole Dick-faced Cheney for that one!

Another popular tactic being utilized by the energy producers is to propagate the idea that fossil fuel production is the only way to ease unemployment and produce more new jobs here in America, or should I say "drill baby drill."

Well I'm here to tell you that many of us don't want to get paid to destroy the environment and/or poison people & livestock and America needs to wake up to the fact that those same good paying jobs could be available via the creation and expansion of clean energy sources and infrastructure maintenance and repair. You know, things we actually need that don't pollute and kill in the process of achieving them.

Yet another tactic is what I call their "island in the stream" method of eliminating dissenting property owners. I can't remember whether it was "Gasland" or "Gasland II" where their was a property owner, (who was a Viet Nam veteran) who was adamantly against fracking and wouldn't allow it on his land. In turn, the energy companies went the extra mile to insure that they had all of his neighboring land owners under contract, in essence leaving him surrounded and a virtual "island in the stream" of pollutants being released all around him.

As the fracking process ensued all around him, the water under his property also became polluted and unsuitable, even for livestock. His land became virtually worthless as no one would even consider purchasing it now and he basically got screwed to the wall, leaving him to wonder if he wouldn't have been better off just selling his property to the energy producers and moving away.

Then lastly, there's the question of just what is a person willing to tolerate and/or ignore when the prospect of becoming rich is entered into the equation. Unfortunately, it seems as though the majority of people are more than willing to look the other way if it means they can become rich in the process.

Didn't someone famous once say that the love for money is the root of all evil? I'd say that person was right as rain!


edit on 24-2-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
With all due respect the issue of fracking safety is not the same as devaluing of property due to fracking. The same thing could apply ot having a power line put through your property, which happened to me, who wants to live beside a 365,000 V power line? I'm not saying fracking is safe, just pointing out the difference. It is a shame that fracking is turning many areas into industrial zones whether or not it pollutes the water table as well. Obviously you need lots of $$ to sue for loss of property value I would imagine.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by iRoyalty
 


Awesome find!!!!!


Proof is in the pudding. To many mindless people out there believe the hype that "fracking is okay." And even this guy is fine with fracking as long as it's not near his home.

Proof that fracking is NOT okay.
edit on 24-2-2014 by WCmutant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Another " Do as I say, not as I do" fella.

Let them take their earthly riches, they will be punished in life and will understand and learn upon death - which will sadly be to late.

Its all just a simulation anyway!



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   
I hope this story makes it's way to the judge, I can imagine that he or she won't be impressed.

If he wins though it could set a precedent for others to file a suit against fracking, so this Texan Rex could end up shooting his business in the foot by his own selfish actions.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by iRoyalty
 


The big corporations are trying to do this here in the UK too, they are being met with hoards of protesters sitting in making sure they can't start work. What happened to the progression of green energy? I hope these greedy disgusting excuses for humans realise that they will be leaving such an irreversibly poisoned planet for their grandchildren.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   
This just points out the true nature of crony capitalism -
Profits are only made at the expense (or health) of others.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by iRoyalty
 


It would appear this guy has never heard the expression,
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

I guess he goes by the other one that says,
"Do unto others, then run like h#!!."



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   

saneguy
With all due respect the issue of fracking safety is not the same as devaluing of property due to fracking. The same thing could apply ot having a power line put through your property, which happened to me, who wants to live beside a 365,000 V power line? I'm not saying fracking is safe, just pointing out the difference. It is a shame that fracking is turning many areas into industrial zones whether or not it pollutes the water table as well. Obviously you need lots of $$ to sue for loss of property value I would imagine.


Yes this is fair enough, which is why I decided to put how much money this guy makes a year at the end. H'es worried about a $5mil devaluation, when he makes over $40mil a year...

Besides , he wouldn't publicly state that he had health concerns over the placement of a fracking site, also the irony that he has done this to thousands of people all over America for many years, just seems like poetic justice.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   

catgtr33
reply to post by iRoyalty
 


The big corporations are trying to do this here in the UK too, they are being met with hoards of protesters sitting in making sure they can't start work. What happened to the progression of green energy? I hope these greedy disgusting excuses for humans realise that they will be leaving such an irreversibly poisoned planet for their grandchildren.


I am on your side of the pond neighbour, this is why I only vote green.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
The story is not about Fracking its about the eyesore that the Water tower which the water company wants to erect, to supply the oil companies with water for fracking purposes, its bit like the wind farm of the Connecticut coast with the Kennedy family who had invested in the company but when that company said we want to place them in your line of sight the kennedy's said no you will spoil our view and we will not let you do that by court order.

this water company is trying to make an extra buck by building this tower in the area they can sell a barrel of water for .25-.70 cents and fracking needs anywhere from 400,000 - 2,000,000 barrels of water to complete the process the water company saw a place where they can make a profit the exxon ceo- big bad oil man doesn't want his view disfigured by a WATER TOWER THIS COURT CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FRACKING PROCESS UNDER GROUND Y'all are not on the right track.
edit on 25-2-2014 by Brit-Tex because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Brit-Tex
The story is not about Fracking its about the eyesore that the Water tower which the water company wants to erect, to supply the oil companies with water for fracking purposes, its bit like the wind farm of the Connecticut coast with the Kennedy family who had invested in the company but when that company said we want to place them in your line of sight the kennedy's said no you will spoil our view and we will not let you do that by court order.

this water company is trying to make an extra buck by building this tower in the area they can sell a barrel of water for .25-.70 cents and fracking needs anywhere from 400,000 - 2,000,000 barrels of water to complete the process the water company saw a place where they can make a profit the exxon ceo- big bad oil man doesn't want his view disfigured by a WATER TOWER THIS COURT CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FRACKING PROCESS UNDER GROUND Y'all are not on the right track.
edit on 25-2-2014 by Brit-Tex because: (no reason given)


I guess this explains why, in his lawsuit, they use such terms as "constant noise from trucks operating day and night, the pollution of our air and water; along with the detriment to our family's health, and this will all be happening before extraction begins."
I had no idea such terms could ALL be directed toward the erection of a water tower regardless of it's resultant purpose.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
fracing in and of itself is not always a bad thing. They can do it safely if they want. In fact they have been fracing for about 30+ years already. HOWEVER, things are a bit different now.

A few years ago they came up with horizontal frac's, before they had always been in vertical well-bores. When you frac a vertical well-bore the fracs propagate horizontally out a few hundred meters from where you put the pressure. No big deal as wells are not drilled close to each other due to spacing requirements.

Current horizontal fracs are multi-staged units that blast an entire 1.6km long horizontal well-bore. Where this becomes an issue is because these fracs propagate vertically, which can then smash through impermeable layers which will allow for the flow of fluids from one zone to another. This is when your dangerous deeper waters and chemicals can mix with shallower waters (waters that might not be contained, which leads to further migration until I can hit potable water).

Another HUGE issue is that these horizontal well-bores travel an entire mile horizontally under the surface. That can bring them very close to old wells that were not properly abandoned in the 60's and earlier. Old well abandonment techniques were very poor. They literally used to use chicken feathers, tar and cardboard and shove it all down the hole until it stopped flowing. Do you think these old abandonment's are going to hold up to high pressure treatments of modern well?

You bet your arse they are not going to hold up! What makes all this worse is that lots and lots and lots of these old wells are not documented. they literally have NO idea where thousands upon thousands of these old wells even are. Once again, not an issue if you are running a vertical well. Throw horizontal wells into the mix and you might pass by tons of these old wells.

In fact. There are documented cases where horizontal fracturing causes communication with old improperly abandoned wells. What happens when you take thousands and thousands of pounds of pressure and connect it to a straw going to the surface? BOOM! All your crap goes right up that straw. The only way they know this happens is that they lose pressure. They don't always know or realize right away that they lose pressure either.

So it can literally take hours before they even get that they are pumping all their frac fluids straight to surface somewhere else. In fact, in some instances they can go several frac stages before they even realize anything has happened. Old vertical fracs were 1 stage systems. Current ones can be 40+ stages.

All this goes out to the lowest bidder. Oil companies are not your friend and will never pretend to be. The dollar wins every time and human life holds no value.
edit on 25-2-2014 by blahblah454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
The law suit states that the water tower was erected without permits etc, therefore the water tower was illegally erected and the Water company gambled that would be considered fait accompli. the tower is 160 feet in height 16 stores over looking a very upscale neighborhood water company had said the max height of the water storage facility would have been 36 feet.



in 2001 application for a permit was for a Public Water Supply Pump/Storage Site" not a 160 foot eyesore.

"6.04. The construction of the water tower will create a constant and"
"unbearab le nuisance to those that live next to it. A water tower will have lights on"
"at all hours of the night, traffic to and from the tower at unknown and unreasonable"
"hours, noise from mechanical and electrical equipment needed to maintain and"
"operate the water tower, and creates and unsafe and attractive nuisance to the"
"children of the area. Furthermore, water towers can create an attractive nesting"
"spot for invasive species of bird and other animals. These animals will befoul"
"Plaintiffs properties if the water tower is left to stand. Further, upon information"
"and belief, BWSC will lease or sell rights to third parties for the location of"
"antenn as and cell towers. Furthermore , upon information and belief, BWSC will sell"
"water to oil and gas explorers for fracing shale formations leading to traffic with"
"heavy tr ucks on FM 407, creating a noise nuisance and traffic hazards."

The laws suit is not about the fracking process its about the water tower and the water companies illegal build of a structure with out permit or permission and the further situation of the decease in property values in the upscale neighborhood.

LAW SUIT IS NOT ABOUT FRACKING READ THE LAW SUIT

I agree the fracking process need more scrutiny yet the article is a media hit piece on a ceo of a large company thats all, the lawsuit includes 6 plaintiffs not just Rex Tlierson
edit on 25-2-2014 by Brit-Tex because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

talklikeapirat
Is this really about fracking?


I think talklikeapirat is right in asking this. The water tower in question is simply STORING the water that will potentially be sold to those who will be fracking. I can't find any information pointing any fracking activities to a location near Tillerson's (or Armey's) property.



In addition to supplying water to the community the tower would sell water for hydraulic fracking


www.bizjournals.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by lemmin
 





I think talklikeapirat is right in asking this. The water tower in question is simply STORING the water that will potentially be sold to those who will be fracking. I can't find any information pointing any fracking activities to a location near Tillerson's (or Armey's) property.






Mr. Tillerson, 61 years old, moved to Bartonville in 2001 and became CEO in 2006. Since 2007, companies have fracked at least nine shale wells within a mile of the Tillerson home, according to Texas regulatory and real-estate records.

The last to do so was XTO Energy Inc., in August 2009, according to Texas regulators. Mr. Tillerson had just begun talks for Exxon to acquire XTO. Four months later, Exxon swallowed its smaller rival for $25 billion, becoming America's biggest gas producer.

online.wsj.com



The lawsuit is not about fracking. Tillersons problem is traffic noise, a 'blocked view' and a $5 million property value loss.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Talklikeapirat thank you for summing this up, iroyalty has fallen for a media hit piece that did not report the full lawsuit for what it actually filled.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


as a result of....... stay with me here..... the fracking operation



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sirhumperdink
 






as a result of....... stay with me here..... the fracking operation


Tillerson suing? No, not even remotely. Fracking will continue and still be a problem. The lawsuit has nothing to do with that.



new topics

top topics



 
112
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join