Exxon CEO: Embrace Fracking, But Not Near My Ranch...

[MaDalton]

Words cannot describe the hypocrisy sometimes:

Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobile, is a staunch supporter of fracking. But bring that business anywhere near his Bartonville, Texas, ranch and he'll sue.

http://www.moneynews.com/Markets/Til...2/25/id/554608

i hope he gets real bad hemorrhoids

[_Richard_]

why? did the world a big favour with this

[TheSquealer]

So no one can read anything but a misleading headline.., as per usual.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

Words cannot describe the hypocrisy sometimes:



http://www.moneynews.com/Markets/Til...2/25/id/554608

i hope he gets real bad hemorrhoids

I wouldn't expect this sort of misleading thread from you, I'm surprised.

[DBS.US]

Buy XOM

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

So no one can read anything but a misleading headline.., as per usual.

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I wouldn't expect this sort of misleading thread from you, I'm surprised.

whats misleading - that he fears his ranch will be worth less due to fracking in his neighbourhood that requires a water tower?

[dyna mo]

from the article::::::::

To be fair, Silverstein noted, the lawsuit Tillerson and his neighbors filed doesn't concern itself too much with the larger implications of natural gas drilling. Mostly, the plaintiffs just want to talk about how a 160-foot water tower is too big and ugly to fit in wealthy, attractive places like Bartonville.

Though Tillerson is clearly against dysfunctional fracking regulation, the lawsuit charges, "This monstrosity will mock the purpose of the Bartonville zoning ordinance."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/Markets/Til...#ixzz2uS0uzDLG
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

[MaDalton]

so that means it would fit better in poorer areas where the people dont have money to sue companies like Exxon?

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

so that means it would fit better in poorer areas where the people dont have money to sue companies like Exxon?

It means only what it means - a lawsuit was filed to stop the construction of a structure that violates zoning ordinances. What is inferred is an agenda driven fantasy.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

so that means it would fit better in poorer areas where the people dont have money to sue companies like Exxon?

exactly

poor deserve it, as per the common mentality

the poor children too

i mean, non-wealthy children.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

so that means it would fit better in poorer areas where the people dont have money to sue companies like Exxon?

It appears the lawsuit is filed against the town, not Exxon. It doesn't require a whole lot of resources/capital to file a suit. + elite neighboorhoods filled with rich people push their agendas, that's what rich people do. Just like a wealthy neighbor hood wouldn't want a pumpjack spoiling their views either



And it's not only that. Here in Los Angeles a neighborhood sued the city to stop the city/county from replacing a freeway overpass because the 2 year long project would sully their views of the landscape, including the dang freeway the overpass crossed.

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

What Is Fracking (and Why Should It Be Banned)?

The case to ban fracking grows stronger every day. Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing. It?s a water-intensive process where millions of gallons of fluid ? a mix of water, sand, and chemicals, including ones known to cause cancer ? are injected underground at high pressure to fracture the rock surrounding an oil or gas well. This releases extra oil and gas from the rock, so it can flow into the well.

But the process of fracking introduces additional industrial activity into communities beyond the well. Clearing land to build new access roads and new well sites, drilling and encasing the well, fracking the well and generating the waste, trucking in heavy equipment and materials and trucking out the vast amounts of toxic waste ? all of these steps contribute to air and water pollution risks and devaluation of land that are turning our communities into sacrifice zones.

Fracking threatens the air we breathe, the water we drink, the communities we love and the climate on which we all depend. That?s why over 250 communities in the U.S. have passed resolutions to stop fracking, and why Vermont, France and Bulgaria have stopped it.

Why a Ban? Can Regulations Make Fracking Safe?

No. Fracking is inherently unsafe and we cannot rely on regulation to protect communities? water, air and public health. The industry enjoys exemptions from key federal legislation protecting our air and water, thanks to aggressive lobbying and cozy relationships with our federal decisionmakers (the exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act is often referred to as the Cheney or Halliburton Loophole, because it was negotiated by then-Vice President Dick Cheney with Congress in 2005).

Plus, the industry is aggressively clamping down on local and state efforts to regulate fracking by buying influence and even bringing lawsuits to stop them from being implemented. That?s why fracking can?t be made safe through government oversight or regulations. An all out ban on fracking is the only way to protect our communities.

If you can't trust Dick "WMD" Cheney, who can you trust (psst, buddy, wanna buy a war?)...

There are numerous organizations for people to get active locally to stop fracking:

National Resources Defense Council

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/wat...action-center/

http://www.stopfrackingnow.com/



ADG

[Robbie]

In other news I heard that the CEO's of solar companies don't want the factory that builds solar panels next to their nice houses either. The CEO of Apple doesn't want the Chinese factory that builds IPhones next to his nice mansion...etc.

I know the point that the "anti-fracking" people are trying to make. But in reality, nobody wants to have a nasty work environment near their houses. Nobody. Doesn't matter what you do (unless it's porn or some other home/office thing).

The whole point of working your whole life to have a nice home is that it's...nice.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

It means only what it means - a lawsuit was filed to stop the construction of a structure that violates zoning ordinances. What is inferred is an agenda driven fantasy.

you're going to kill these guys liberal woodys

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

[B]If you can't trust Dick "WMD" Cheney, who can you trust (psst, buddy, wanna buy a war?)...

Dick Cheney's company did not invent fracking. George Mitchell via his company, Mitchell Energy, invented fracking.

I won't get into all the incorrections the quote you posted has, I will say fracking is here to stay and it will only expand. Those trying to stop it would be better served trying to get better regulations for it.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

you're going to kill these guys liberal woodys

That will never happen. All things ultimately circle back to Bush being evil, Iraq, class warfare or racist republicans. When you have a scat fetish, thinking about any of your favorite turds can keep you hard..

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I wouldn't expect this sort of misleading thread from you, I'm surprised.

Mark Prince would have posted this, which I sure thought it would be when I read the thread title and was surprised to see it wasn't.
He's too busy with his Apple fanboys thread!

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Dick Cheney's company did not invent fracking. George Mitchell via his company, Mitchell Energy, invented fracking.

Hair splitting time again?

From Halliburton.com:

At the forefront of this revolution is a technology known as hydraulic fracturing, a well stimulation practice first pioneered by Halliburton in the 1940s.

From the American Society of Mechanical Engineering:

According to a 2010 fracking history by the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), the idea of non-explosive alternatives to nitroglycerin took root in the 1930s. Experiments through the next decade paved the way for the first industrial-scale commercial uses of the modern patented ?Hydrafrac? process in 1949, with Halliburton holding an exclusive license in the early years.

George Mitchell, who died recently at 94, is often credited as the Father of Fracking, since his company made the hydrafrac process economically feasible.

The larger, significantly more important issue than who invented fracking, is regulation.

You support fracking, so I take it you may be aware of what is known as the "Halliburton Loophole"; for the benefit of those unaware, from Scientific American:

In 2005 Congress?at the behest of then Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of gas driller Halliburton?exempted fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

From the New York Times:

Among the many dubious provisions in the 2005 energy bill was one dubbed the Halliburton loophole, which was inserted at the behest of ? you guessed it ? then-Vice President Dick Cheney, a former chief executive of Halliburton.

It stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate a drilling process called hydraulic fracturing. Invented by Halliburton in the 1940s, it involves injecting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals, some of them toxic, into underground rock formations to blast them open and release natural gas.

This bill exempted fluids used in the natural gas extraction process of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) from protections under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and CERCLA.

It created a loophole that exempts companies drilling for natural gas from disclosing the chemicals involved in fracking operations that would normally be required under federal clean water laws ? see exemptions for hydraulic fracturing under United States federal law.

The loophole is commonly known as the "Halliburton loophole" since former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney was reportedly instrumental in its passage.

The proposed Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act would repeal these exemptions.

Even George Mitchell, shortly before he died, indicated that more regulation of fracking is required:

?The administration is trying to tighten up controls,? he told me. ?I think it?s a good idea. They should have very strict controls. The Department of Energy should do it.?

So why did Mitchell think fracking needs to be better controlled? ?Because if they don?t do it right there could be trouble,? he said. There?s no excuse not to get it right. ?There are good techniques to make it safe that should be followed properly,? he said. But, the smaller, independent drillers, ?are wild.?

?It?s tough to control these independents. If they do something wrong and dangerous, they should punish them,? Mitchell said. All of them ?know how to set up a proper well and do the proper technology.? But a few bad actors could ruin the entire industry.

Mitchell dismissed any concern that the costs to drillers of abiding by a barrage of fracking regulations would be egregious. After all, any extra costs associated with best practices?assuming all producers follow them?would be passed on in the price of natural gas.

For those who want to learn more about the dangers of fracking, what the controversy is about, and what can be done about it, I recommend checking out "Gasland: The Movie", and the website:



http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/take-...hting-fracking





ADG

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Robbie

In other news I heard that the CEO's of solar companies don't want the factory that builds solar panels next to their nice houses either. The CEO of Apple doesn't want the Chinese factory that builds IPhones next to his nice mansion...etc.

I know the point that the "anti-fracking" people are trying to make. But in reality, nobody wants to have a nasty work environment near their houses. Nobody. Doesn't matter what you do (unless it's porn or some other home/office thing).

The whole point of working your whole life to have a nice home is that it's...nice.

my point regarding fracking is that toxic fluids are pumped into the ground and no one can foresee the long term effects - especially not on ground water

eventually you are poisoning your future water supply - and all that so you can drive V8 and have AC everywhere

to be honest - i love animals but i rather have a couple birds flying into a windmill than that

[dyna mo]

I appreciate your idealism, ADG, but I'm on the side that will win.
Fracking is increasing exponentially across the US and the world and nothing will stop that.

Again, people like you would be much better served by trying to get proper regulations and processes such as waterless fracking requirements applied to the technology rather than trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

Originally Posted by Dvae

Mark Prince would have posted this, which I sure thought it would be when I read the thread title and was surprised to see it wasn't.
He's too busy with his Apple fanboys thread!

Indeed!

[georgeyw]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

so that means it would fit better in poorer areas where the people dont have money to sue companies like Exxon?

Or more likely scenario is they did not want fracking so went after it in a manner that didn't address the actual fracking.

Zoning.. Yeah ok that's the reason they are fighting this

[alwayshornyasfuck86]

politics again never quits

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

Hair splitting time again?

From Halliburton.com:

At the forefront of this revolution is a technology known as hydraulic fracturing, a well stimulation practice first pioneered by Halliburton in the 1940s.



ADG

I didn't realize Cheney was that old!

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

my point regarding fracking is that toxic fluids are pumped into the ground and no one can foresee the long term effects - especially not on ground water

eventually you are poisoning your future water supply - and all that so you can drive V8 and have AC everywhere

to be honest - i love animals but i rather have a couple birds flying into a windmill than that

I'm not sure of this...but aren't there already all kinds of toxic stuff underground naturally already?

It just seems like everytime something happens that is hopeful for mankind...the left take a shit on it.

When I was in highschool in the 1970's we were told that the world's oil supply would be depleted within 20 years. And then they doubled down on that by telling us that greenhouse gases were going to cause another Ice Age.

When new oil reserves were being found as technology improved to find and get them...they changed the story to acid rain in the 1980's. We were all doomed again.

When that didn't happen. The "Ice Age" became "Global Warming".

Apparently the global temps have stopped rising the last couple of years. So now "Global Warming" became "Climate Change".
And oil is so expensive that gas was costing us an arm and a leg. And the left cheered!

Then...fracking technology is introduced. Suddenly the economy in the places with fracking is taking off and people are making great money. The U.S. is now the number one oil producing country in the world and scientists are saying that the U.S. may have the largest oil deposits ANYWHERE.

And the left is going berserk over that. Immediately...they put out the "Gasland" movie which isn't a real study. It's a movie where they came into it with a preconceived agenda and then proceeded to "prove" it.

As just an ordinary guy living here in the U.S., it sure does seem that something is very damn fishy about the way the left is so hysterical and exaggerates shit and changes their story every decade or so.

I too, would LOVE to have a solar car, solar home, etc.
Not for the environment (though I do wish it were only for that noble cause)...but because I'm sick of paying for energy use.

And I'm sick of paying for the left to artificially keep gas and oil prices high & discourage new technologies that could make gas and oil plentiful. It's costing all of us in high costs for food, goods...hell EVERYTHING because everything has to be transported.

I'm very, very suspicious of the people who are "against" fracking right out of the gate. They didn't even hesitate to condemn it before it had even started.

And those organizations and their like-minded brethren have been WRONG over and over since the 1970's.

But just in case they are right for the first time...I'm gonna take a "wait and see" approach. Right now I'm leaning toward more jobs, a booming economy, energy independence.