Exxon Mobile CEO Sues To Stop Fracking Near His Texas Ranch 317
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Exxon Mobile's CEO Rex Tillerson's day job is to do all he can to protect and nurture the process of hydraulic fracturing—aka 'fracking'—so that his company can continue to rake in billions via the production and sale of natural gas. 'This type of dysfunctional regulation is holding back the American economic recovery, growth, and global competitiveness,' said Tillerson in 2012 of attempts to increase oversight of drilling operations. But now Rick Unger reports at Forbes that Tillerson has joined a lawsuit seeking to shut down a fracking project near his Texas ranch. Why? Because the 160 foot water tower being built next to Tillerson's house that will supply the water to the near-by fracking site, means the arrival of loud trucks, an ugly tower next door, and the general unpleasantness that will interfere with the quality of his life and the real estate value of his sizeable ranch. The water tower is being built by Cross Timbers Water Supply Corp., a nonprofit utility that has supplied water to the region for half a century. Cross Timbers says that it is required by state law to build enough capacity to serve growing demand. In 2011, Bartonville denied Cross Timbers a permit to build the water tower, saying the location was reserved for residences. The water company sued, arguing that it is exempt from municipal zoning because of its status as a public utility. In May 2012, a state district court judge agreed with Cross Timbers and compelled the town to issue a permit. The utility resumed construction as the town appealed the decision. Later that year, the Tillersons and their co-plaintiffs sued Cross Timbers, saying that the company had promised them it wouldn't build a tower near their properties. An Exxon spokesman said Tillerson declined to comment. The company 'has no involvement in the legal matter' and its directors weren't told of Mr. Tillerson's participation, the spokesman said."
Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is anyone surprised? This is like how Eric "Peeping Tom" Schmidt says people have no privacy and then complains about drones with cameras flying around his house. Don't you plebes know that the rich are our betters and deserve more rights? You're not a bunch of socialist retards are you?
Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
we are just flowers to be plucked to supply bouquets of posies, so that the gentry do not need to smell the foulness of our rotting bodies
So... does anybody directly remember the outrages of the 19th century? The work farms, then pauper prisons, the crowded workplaces where worker's only options to escape a fire were to launch themselves from multi-story buildings, or when the 'babysitter' was a bottle of laudanum to knock your baby out with opiates while you were working?
Probably not, but all of these abuses were well documented and they are the direct result for the Union movements (along with global socialism) that knocked the landed gentry and robber barons off of their roosts and allowed the growth of a new class, the educated middle class that American hold so dear
It is well past time that the middle class recognized that they are being pushed back into the 19th century and start pushing back
Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (Score:5, Funny)
we are just flowers to be plucked to supply bouquets of posies, so that the gentry do not need to smell the foulness of our rotting bodies
aka, "mongo only pawn in game of life."
Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is precisely why you get Internet Libertarians smugly arguing against unions: their sheltered upbringing prevented them from learning about being downtrodden anything, except for maybe having to do household chores when they didn't want to.
Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (Score:5, Funny)
I wouldn't have had to make my bed if only we had the gold standard! Fiat currency causes dirty dishes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with unions is that they are a useful idea that has been subverted into a money making scheme for the people running them. They are now a symbol of waste and greed rather than liberation. Some smug internet Libertarians recognize them for what they are.
Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly unions are not perfect, and nobody will argue otherwise. The proper thing to do is reforming them so they'll actually represent the members' interests, not nihilistically destroying them so the rich and powerful can become more rich and powerful... which, not coincidentally, is what said smug Internet Libertarians want to do with government, because they're sheltered idiots who think they'd be the ones rising to the top.
Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? And on what basis do you assert this? What's the income of the union presidents?
Yep, unions are a waste of time... of course, you like working 60+ hour weeks with declining benifits (if you have any), and decreasing vacation days (or, since they've done the "modern" thing, and merged your sick time with your vacation time to be "paid time off", don't get sick).
And btw, I googled what "exempt salaried" meant in the US, legally... and found that there's a *special* exemption for computer people, meaning they can say "whatever it takes", and claim the benifits of having you salaried... and not paying you for, say, snow days, meaning you're really just hourly, with no chance of a union.
There are two kinds of Republicans and Libertarians: millionaires, and suckers.
mark
Re: (Score:3)
I thought that was an interesting question!
http://www.publicintegrity.org... [publicintegrity.org]
The Center for Public Integrity found compensation for leaders of the 10 largest unions ranged from $173,000 at the United Auto Workers to $618,000 at the Laborersâ(TM) International Union of North America and almost $480,000 for the president of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees. The latter is the target of GOP governors in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee and Kansas.
Wowsers! $618,000 dolla
Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Gov't workers haven't gotten pensions since the mid 80s. Only the lowest paid workers still get that option, everyone else gets a 402b or whatever the respective retirement option that closely resembles what a 401k is.
You also must have the preconceived notion that the concept of upper management who gets paid grossly more than the standard rank and file employee doesn't exist in the public sector.
You would be greatly mistaken. The same issues come up in both private and public now a days.
Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
The objection to the public sector having unions has a whiff of "why, I don't get those kinds of benefits anymore (now that my workplace has been de-unionized and partially outsourced to the third world), so why should those people?".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
roffle. That's straight out of "Mises.org Talking Points 101", especially the "go read a book, you ignorant person, because I can't be bothered to make cogent arguments" bit at the end.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and I mostly agree. But that's not a reason to do away with them entirely.
Re: (Score:3)
I think garment workers in Bangladesh know something about having no options to escape building fires.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think anyone directly remembers those outrages, no :P
Pepperidge Farms remembers. Now back to the cookie mines with you!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
These CEOs worked hard for their privileges.
You can start moaning when your salary is 1000x the average.
Re: (Score:3)
No no no, they physically worked hard enough to park $32 trillion offshore with IRS immunity.
http://www.democraticundergrou... [democratic...ground.com]
All those forms they had to tell a receptionist to fill out.
Having to stand in line for lunch !!! The horror !!! LOL...
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with the hypocrisy part of it, but what does the white part have to do with it?
Re: (Score:3)
Name me a rich, non-white CEO/trust fund baby/rich asshole family that is doing anything like this.
I don't think Stanley O'Neal [wikipedia.org] has done anything exactly like this, but he's an excellent example of a plutocrat with no shame, humility, or sense of self-awareness, and a now-legendary asshole responsible for destroying countless billions of other people's investments. He's also black.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, all the photos I've seen on him make him look like a oompa loompa.
Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (Score:4, Funny)
It's like my uncle Ivan, an old-time red used to say to me. "Kid, nobody believes in socialism. Nobody believes in capitalism either. It's 'Socialism for me, capitalism for you."
Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
The utility says it needs to build more due to increased water demand due to the fracking.
I hate it when people lie to prove a point. It makes their point suspect. Even if I were on the Anti-Fracking side I would not want an article like this to make my side look like lying, underhanded dipshits.
Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
So basically he's suing to stop the fracking, because without that water tower they can't frack on that land.
The tower is an excuse.
Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no proof offered one way or the other on his feelings toward fracking in the area though and to imply otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Re: (Score:2)
It's basic reasoning: he's a CEO of a major oil company that does fracking elsewhere, someone else comes in and starts fracking next to him, he finds reasons that aren't blindingly hypocritical to oppose it because saying "I don't want fracking in my backyard" would be devastating to his own company.
I guarantee you that if the neighboring operation didn't need the tower and noisy trucks he'd still find other reasons to oppose it. That's just how people are. Besides, you are likely going to have need for e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take my "proof by innuendo" over "I'm too willfully blind to put two and two together".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you so invested in "you people are lying, he's just coincidentally against this thing that's TOTALLY UNRELATED, I SWEAR"? You're being willfully obtuse.
Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It also went against some of their energy investments.
When you have a goose laying golden eggs, you don't want some clean energy
cutting into your stock portfolio that might interrupt your position in "the leisure class".
Re:Is Exxon Mobile a new phone company? (Score:4, Funny)
See...the Internet is kind of like a pipeline...
Re:Racist. (Score:4, Informative)
Rightly or wrongly, it's shorthand for "privileged majority".
fracking should be done where it should be .... (Score:3, Insightful)
only near poor people.
I have NO doubt that this water plant will be stopped because this guy and his neighbors have the power. Then they'll just it to a poorer neighborhood.
And the rich wonder they are resented.
Re:fracking should be done where it should be .... (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't wonder. They pay shills to "wonder" and "just ask questions" about "all this class warfare". Wondering takes time away from the golf course.
No poorer neighborhoods (Score:2)
There ARE no poor neighborhoods near this house. Bartonville, TX is upper-middle class suburbia.
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yay.
Just like the rich ecofreaks suing to stop wind farms off Martha's Vinyard. OK, those folks did have a legit concern that a Kennedy might fly or drive into one, but still...
Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but poor people worried about fracking are concerned with boring things like water-table pollution. This CEO and those people are worried about real life problems that actually matter, like property values.
Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
That only works at the local level. If your local merchant behaves badly wrt (NI)MBY, he'll get a bad reputation that will hurt his business. But when we're dealing with multinational corporations, this "local" connection is lost. Even if the locals boycott the bad actor, the rest of the world might continue buying their products, unaware of the "local" damage they do in a few isolated places.
Here in Taiwan, it's as close to a Libertarian Paradise as I've ever encountered. Small, local businesses (like mine
Re: (Score:2)
Except the CEO was actually more worried about the water tower being built next door than the water table.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, that's what I said, give or take?
Re: (Score:2)
OK. All but the last 3 words of your post say a different message without them. And I hit tl;dr at the line wrap. You can blame me for being lazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Make unsubstantiated claim undermining original argument... check
Mention impotence of dreaded federal agency... check
Lace with smarmy rhetoric... check
Sidetrack entire argument with mention of unrelated case and easily mocked celebrity... check
see we call all shill for fun and profit, where do you go to get signed up?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
then stop AC-ing
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
leading with an ad hominem... nice
Such is the state of political discourse these days
But, you may ask, why oh why?
Namely it is rooted in the capability for any well funded entity to lean their financial weight into their argument in a manner that shuts out individuals
It does not matter if it is Citizen's United ruling allowing billions of dollars to influence elections, snatching up media sources to influence content, or funding astro-turfing of message boards to make it seem like everybody else agrees with
Re: (Score:2)
Me neither...
Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Halliburton loophole was created to hide 8 chemicals from publication.
Samples taken show that there are outlawed chemicals.
Google "Halliburton Loophole" you troll shill Ahole.
Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Halliburton loophole was created to hide 8 chemicals from publication.
Samples taken show that there are outlawed chemicals.
Google "Halliburton Loophole" you troll shill Ahole.
Huh, so if the purpose is fracking then, by definition, whatever you squirt down into the earth is not a pollutant. That's pretty rich. I have also heard another cop-out, which may or may not be accurate, that companies can claim "trade secrets" to avoid the EPA even just knowing what they squirt down, let alone rule on whether or not it constitutes pollution.
Sickening.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't this the same argument used by the tobacco companies for years, while they suppressed scientific evidence?
Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (Score:5, Informative)
ya, all those woman who developed cancer, or had their implants burst inside their bodies, sending silicon into various random places or simply making their chests look like golf balls.....they were all faking it.
thought experiment: lets pump water and chemicals into the ground at high pressure specifically for the purpose of fracturing the rock to release entrapped natural gas. the water slurry even helps push it out by displacing it (ie: flowing into the cracks). the entire process rests on the principle of cracking rocks and having water (with chemicals) flow into said cracks.
so just where in hell do you think that water goes?
there's 2 possible answers, both of which are unsatisfactory:
1) into groundwater tables and acquifers (water bearing layers of rock)
2) who knows because at the depths and scales we're talking about, no one really knows with certainity how far the newly created fractures lead*, and whether it connects with a acquifer.
*we do know (regardless of industry claims otherwise) that the fractures are sufficient in size and depth to relieve stresses in the crust triggering earthquakes, so the idea they connect to acquifers is hardly far fetched.
short version: the only wacky person here is you.
and don't make fun of Meryl Streep, she's probably the world's greatest living actress.
Re: (Score:2)
How many of those rich ecofreaks got rich selling windfarms ?
Re: (Score:2)
None. They didn't produce anything or work to earn their money at all. They inherited it.
nimby (Score:4, Insightful)
I take it its not his company thats doing the fraking
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the high risk activities are usually farmed out to smaller companies that can be folded easily with little risk of the larger multinationals getting sued
of course if Exxon Mobile just happens to buy and resell the oil... well their hands are clean
Re: (Score:2)
I take it its not his company thats doing the fraking
Fraking isn't typically performed by oil companies but rather by oildfield service companies (Haliburton, Schlumberger, Sanjel, Baker Hughes and Trican all come to mind...).
Ridiculous. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's crap like this that makes thinking individuals question the integrity of 'enviro-kooks'.
If you were thinking clearly, you'd notice that it was a headline on a website that gets its money from page views and that inflammatory headlines are a great source of clicks. It's journalism you should be blaming here, not environmentalism.
That is, unless you want to engage in exactly the same kind of attribution error to smear the opposition that you accuse them of making.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are the one who needs to re-read the Forbes link. It is also about a water tower. It's also a poorly-written op/ed with a misleading headline, much to StrangeBrew's point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ridiculous. (Score:4, Insightful)
No water tower, no fracking. He doesn't like a particular side effect of fracking. But he fights others who don't like other side effects.
"Mobile"...Really? C'mon guys... (Score:5, Informative)
"Mobile"...Really? C'mon guys...
Exxon MOBIL
Re:"Mobile"...Really? C'mon guys... (Score:4, Funny)
I wondered if Exxon was getting into the cell phone business
Re: (Score:2)
They already own some big pipes. All you have to do is put some transmitters on top of some derricks,and they could cover Texas pretty well.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, yeah, Enron was getting into telecom (according to their propaganda) circa 1999
Re: (Score:2)
No, they obviously meant to say Exxonmobile. Like Batmobile.
Not fracking, a water tower (Score:5, Insightful)
He's actually ok with a low-rise water tower that he can't really see from his ranch.
So, over-react much, headline writer?
Re:Not fracking, a water tower (Score:5, Informative)
So there's a link, but it is a little disingenuous to say he's suing to stop fracking. His suit (linked from TFA) is about the water tower. He doesn't want a high-rise water tower across the street. He's actually ok with a low-rise water tower that he can't really see from his ranch. So, over-react much, headline writer?
If there weren't fracking to be done then the water wouldn't be needed, then there wouldn't be a water tower or the extra truck traffic, so it's not unrelated to fracking. Perhaps not about groundwater or earthquakes or whatever, but still an issue.
And this actually brings up a less-often mentioned concern about gas extraction -- the conflict between water and energy resources. You need water to produce energy (and energy to "produce" water). IEEE Spectrum had a good feature [ieee.org] on this.
Re: (Score:2)
If the lawsuit is successful, and the tower is blocked, it can be, and likely will, be constructed elsewhere. The lawsuit will not stop the fracking, at best it might delay it a little.
Now, it a competitor is trying tap into a big resource... would it be in his best interest to be as much of a headache as possible... Delay the development so his competitor has to spent much more to get things done. Hmmm... just a thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we using potable water for fracking?
Re: (Score:2)
The towers must be installed to a certain height or the water will never have the head necessary to supply the residents further out. The only way to reduce height would be to build 4 times as many towers. What he's really saying is don't build that tower near the rich, go build it in the poor neighborhood. The time honored request of the rich, which is why there's a federal law against singling out the poor for major infrastructure installations.
Re: (Score:2)
which water towers provide.
Just a nit pick here.. But Water Towers don't "provide" water, they are part of the distribution system. The water must be obtained from some kind of source like a well or lake.
Problem here is that the height of a water tower is related to the working pressure of the distribution system. So a low rise tower would cause the distribution system to be redesigned to work at lower pressures.
But I'm not clear how THIS tower has any direct impact on the fracking activity. Water for fracking is usually delivere
misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not suing about fracking specifically, or any would-be-hypocrisy-laden dangers or damages associated with it. He's suing over a water tower and the traffic associated with it. There's a considerable difference.
Re:misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a copy of the complaint: http://online.wsj.com/public/r... [wsj.com]
It is a municipal zoning issue, which mentions fracking in passing in paragraph 6.04. As far as I can tell, the main objection is to the height of the water tower and the fact that it does not comply with zoning ordinances.
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I can tell, the main objection is to the height of the water tower and the fact that it does not comply with zoning ordinances.
...which it doesn't have to because it is a utility.
Really, his objection is more like "I don't want it there, and I have enough money to hire lawyers so I should be able to get my way".
I don't really see the connection with fracking though. I suppose if he put his injection wells on his own property, he could perhaps solve the problem by making the ground there too geologically unstable to put a water tower on....
"To Stop Fracking"? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It's just too juicy to pass up though. Fracking is second only to Global Warming on the high profile flamewar list.
Re:"To Stop Fracking"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well this is in part due to the halliburton loophole allowing them to not list
8 very nasty and toxic chemicals they are leaking into the water table.
Watch the film "Gasland" and realize that some of the oil & gas lobby
has been hired to poo poo the film because it might hurt their business.
Keep in mind some ppl get royalty checks off oil and gas leases, etc etc
and they are biased by the money flowing in from it.
Re:"To Stop Fracking"? (Score:4, Informative)
How do you mean, no such thing? The Act clearly added an exclusion for "The underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities." from being defined as "UNDERGROUND INJECTION", and subject to the corresponding regulation.
Re:"To Stop Fracking"? (Score:4, Informative)
Can you point out to me where in the document you link for "Haliburton Loophole" it says that that's a myth? All I see is the Energy Policy Act of 2005; Section 322 of that document indicates that ‘‘(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.’’ are exempted from the "Underground Injection" provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Additionally the Clean Water Act [epa.gov] was amended to clarify that "water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas..." are NOT classified as pollutants. These two things together seem to indicate that they can in fact pump whatever they'd like into wells to facilitate oil production, even if it's not labeled specifically as "The Haliburton Loophole". Am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously?... Forbes throws up a headline like that and if you RTFA it's all about a freaking municipal water tower... only a single throw-away line about the tower providing water to a nearby drilling operation. That's quite a stretch... What a troll!
Welcome to Environmentalist Wack-o's view of the world. Any angle that might snag some unsuspecting soul and help further their cause. They do this kind of thing ALL the time.
He is in the title fight. (Score:4, Informative)
Still he can't beat "distressed babies" CEO of AOL.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing he's going to loose, so why not let him opine with abandon? After it's all said and done, and the tower goes up, he won't be able to complain he was unfairly treated or not listened to. That he squandered his chance, is all the better..
First person account (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/... [dailykos.com]
Your link is horrid. The use of strikeout to only something is crappy and poor journalism. Also, factually incorrect.
NIMB (Score:5, Funny)
Someone should buy this cunt a pizza and coke and tell him to shut the fuck up and stop being such a hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The use of that word makes women uncomfortable. Please be courteous with your language.
You presume the use of 'that word' doesn't make men uncomfortable which is, in itself, a sexist position for you to take and implies that women are somehow weaker than men.
In the future, I'll thank you to keep your sexist and discriminatory comments to yourself.
Getting fat on delicious irony! Yum! (Score:2)
First, the gun-grabber Dwayne Ferguson gets caught carrying a loaded weapon into an elementary school racking up felony charges which would have been a misdemeanor had he not pushed so hard to upgrade the laws in his state. Now we have a famous fracker who is now fighting his own industry trying to prevent it from happening close to his land. Now we just need some successful eminent domain victims in rich neighborhoods to have their homes destroyed and lands taken so NASCAR can build another loud-assed tr
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, any of the rights can be removed. The constitution is designed to change.
" Forget about tenets of civilization such as not doing to people that which you wouldn't want done to you. "
Hardly a tenet of civilization. In fact, the vast majority of civilized history was built on the backs of others.
Up to and including today,.
Re: (Score:2)
Did I say it wrong or did you read it wrong? Where do I suggest harming the second amendment? I completely support the 2nd amendment to levels which some pro-second people might disagree. I think EVERYONE of adult age should be armed. If people choose not to be, that is their right but for people to go about cowering in fear at the very word "gun" should be a signal to just how cowardly the people of the US have become. Meanwhile gun-toting paramilitary police are out there wearing masks and no name-ta
Lying, Murdering OIl & Gas Companies (Score:3)
I know some paid shills say the film "gasland" is full of lies, but then tell me
why some gas companies are trucking water to ppls homes because
reverse osmosis filtering won't take the toxic horrors out of the water.
The oil/gas companies have a history of lying and even paying countries
to kill their citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Here in the US go back to Karen Silkwood, though there have been others
more recent that were less sloppy in their cover up.
FTFA (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So yes it's about fracking....idiot...
If his lawsuit is about fracking, then SlashDot is about rocket science because it sometimes has articles about NASA.
His primary complaint is about how the water tower will ruin the view from his deck, the rest of the lawsuit is every other reason he can come up including the kitchen sink for not building the tower in a specific place. It's common in lawsuits to come up with *every* possible reason you can think of, no matter how unlikely, just in the slight chance one of these reasons stick or perhaps sc
Re: (Score:2)
Sheer, shear is what your mom used to use on your hair after she made you wear a big bowl like a helmet.
Re: (Score:2)
so true. where I grew up there was a 100 year old dance hall that was shut down by the people who knowingly bought houses in the new subdivision behind it. this kind of stuff really gives me the red ass.