Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Ashotep

Exxon CEO joins anti-fracking lawsuit

50 posts in this topic

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson is involved in a legal battle over fracking. The weird part is, he’s on the side that’s against it.

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/21/exxon_ceo_joins_anti_fracking_lawsuit_after_drilling_threatens_his_property_value/

So now he's against it, how rich.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now he's against it, how rich.

He IS rich - that's the point.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love a hypocrite.

Br Cornelius

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Fracking is totally safe as long as it isn't on your own doorstep.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least they will no longer be able to take the high moral ground - which is a result if nothing else. The battle for hearts and minds has already been lost in all new areas of expansion for the industry.

Br Cornelius

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd bet a quarter... this guy still says its perfectly safe, but a little messy and noisy for some areas? Like his horse ranch! or residential areas?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd bet a quarter... this guy still says its perfectly safe, but a little messy and noisy for some areas? Like his horse ranch! or residential areas?

Tell that to the Texans of Dallas.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fracking is perfectly safe as long as it is done right, but I can't blame the guy for not wanting it done on his land.

Once fracking is done on your land what you can do with your land becomes highly restricted until the fracking is finished. I can't remember all of the restrictions but it was stuff like you cant build anything at all within 10 yards of any fracking equipment, the areas you are allowed to build on still have restrictions on what is allowed to be built, and if I remember correctly the land owner is partially responsible for mantience of the fracking equipment and can get sued if anything happens to it or if any problems arise.

Fracking is safe but almost all the contracts the fracking companies try to get people to agree to are terrible and I can understand why the guy is fighting this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fracking cannot be said to be safe. It causes air pollution, water pollution and brings heavy plant into areas which were previously rural. All of these things are recorded and have safety risks associated with them. The fact that in some ideal world Fracking might be possible to do without these issues is hardly material to those effected.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fracking is perfectly safe as long as it is done right, but I can't blame the guy for not wanting it done on his land.

As for not building anything on, or near, the lease site: we've had two drilling and one fracking accident in Oklahoma in the last three years. In the first drilling accident, the crew had the blowout preventer apart for repairs. Emissions from the well ignited on the rig. After that, there wasn't anything left to do but run. Everybody got off OK, but several people's cars burned up. Lawsuits still working through the courts.

Second accident: nobody knows how the fire got started, but it killed the derrickman. Rig was a total loss.

Fracking accident: the crew was using MWD (measurement while drilling) equipment prior to the actual fracturing. The gear uses a very high jolt of electricity to make measurements of the hole. They had it out for maintenance but a new man on site didn't have the power supply disconnected. They had another machine hooked up to the same system. The boss told another new crewman to turn the power on. Fortunately, the maintenance man had just stood up to get a tool and didn't have ahold of the instruments. There was a fifty-foot arc across the drill pad; fortunately it missed everybody, but the whole system was taken offline for several days while the companies investigated. The boss got fired over that one.

Once fracking is done on your land what you can do with your land becomes highly restricted until the fracking is finished. I can't remember all of the restrictions but it was stuff like you cant build anything at all within 10 yards of any fracking equipment, the areas you are allowed to build on still have restrictions on what is allowed to be built, and if I remember correctly the land owner is partially responsible for mantience of the fracking equipment and can get sued if anything happens to it or if any problems arise.

Do you mean to say that an oil or gas company that's willing to spend four or five MILLION dollars on one well is going to balk at a contract that requires them to be responsible for their own equipment? They pay the mud logger more than it takes to clean up a typical site.

Fracking is safe but almost all the contracts the fracking companies try to get people to agree to are terrible and I can understand why the guy is fighting this.

Drilling and fracking are only safe if nobody makes a mistake. But, people make mistakes. Oklahoma probably has one of the best regulatory systems in the world, but even here, accidents still happen. States like Ohio and Pennsylvania that won't pass the proper regulations are at the mercy of unscrupulous or incompetent operators, nut to mention the problems with unknown faults and lots of synclines and anticlines. And our lassez-faire state governments don't mind if somebody ELSE gets killed.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He IS rich - that's the point.

Doug

That was my point, only a rich guy could stop this. The rest of us would have to live with it so the likes of him can get richer.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ridiculous. Fracking is perfectly safe - until it's on the doorstep of a wealthy neighbourhood.

Bunch of crooks and Hippocrates.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ridiculous. Fracking is perfectly safe - until it's on the doorstep of a wealthy neighbourhood.

Bunch of crooks and Hippocrates.

NIMBY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If someone like him is changing his mind there is something else going on. The motives of these people are rarly honest :P

Anyone who saying it's safe is lying. No industrial process is completely safe, or clean. I think the arguments will go on until a bunch of people die from drinking poisoned water, then we will start to see bans.

Edited by Finity
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is simply been a NIMBY. A real down to earth hypocrite.

he knew the reality all along but it was never going to effect him - until now.

This is the quality of people we are dealing with here.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is simply been a NIMBY. A real down to earth hypocrite.

he knew the reality all along but it was never going to effect him - until now.

This is the quality of people we are dealing with here.

Br Cornelius

I hope he is called to testify. I'd really like to hear why he suddenly thinks fracking is undesirable. He may have a legitimate reason, but it would be fun to watch him squirm if he didn't. And maybe we can quote him.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypocrisy... If it doesn't exists amongst greenies:

But he has now expressed despair that the original intentions of the movement have been misconstrued as a license to cast aside our "priceless ecological heritage".

In recent years the scientist has outraged many followers after becoming an advocate of nuclear power and a staunch opponent of wind energy.

Prof Lovelock is protesting against a single turbine at Witherdon Wood, Broadwoodwidger. It is believed he lives or has a property 43 miles away near Barnstaple.

(link)

(On the other hand, I wonder, what Lovelock would say if nuclear power plant would be built "near" his house... Change his opinion again?)

I'd bet, Dr. Fruit Fly D.Suzuki would find 100 reasons against wind power facilities near his property(ies) as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypocrisy... If it doesn't exists amongst greenies:

(link)

(On the other hand, I wonder, what Lovelock would say if nuclear power plant would be built "near" his house... Change his opinion again?)

I'd bet, Dr. Fruit Fly D.Suzuki would find 100 reasons against wind power facilities near his property(ies) as well.

If you believe in the wisdom of alternatives you have to do what the Germans do - allow locals to own the local generating capacity and profit from it. This is the primary reason why people allow wind turbines in their back yards and why Germany is on target to generate over 50% of its electricity from renewables.

If the local community only see's the down side of company profiteering then it should be no surprise that they don't welcome new technologies.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe in the wisdom of alternatives you have to do what the Germans do - allow locals to own the local generating capacity and profit from it. This is the primary reason why people allow wind turbines in their back yards and why Germany is on target to generate over 50% of its electricity from renewables.

If the local community only see's the down side of company profiteering then it should be no surprise that they don't welcome new technologies.

Br Cornelius

Since we OTed, 50% is quite far away if we take worst case scenarios - winter, when PV production drops substantially (more than 10 times) in comparison to summer months (pages 10, 14) while demand increases. Without proper strategy (storage, storage, and once more, storage) all optimistic predictions are doomed to fail.

Data for other years here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we OTed, 50% is quite far away if we take worst case scenarios - winter, when PV production drops substantially (more than 10 times) in comparison to summer months (pages 10, 14) while demand increases. Without proper strategy (storage, storage, and once more, storage) all optimistic predictions are doomed to fail.

Data for other years here.

Germany is willing and capable to put all parts of the puzzle together to achieve those targets. Its all about will and strategy and forsight.

They will achieve it before anyone else and as a consequence when oil really spirals out of control - they will be the last man standing with a viable economy.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany is willing and capable to put all parts of the puzzle together to achieve those targets. Its all about will and strategy and forsight.

They will achieve it before anyone else and as a consequence when oil really spirals out of control - they will be the last man standing with a viable economy.

Br Cornelius

I really hope you are right, though I don't see real strategy and foresight, only will and "hurrah strategy".

We have to cut carbon emissions (gas/coal/oil) as fast as possible - I do hope you agree with that. Without NPPs (with all drawbacks) that goal is further away (with all unreliabilities of PV/wind sources).

Of course, we can put draconian restrictions on electricity consumption, say, 10kWh/person/month (heh, I would love to see that...) with consequential rise in price for every 1kWh/person/month by 2 - quite incentive, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope you are right, though I don't see real strategy and foresight, only will and "hurrah strategy".

We have to cut carbon emissions (gas/coal/oil) as fast as possible - I do hope you agree with that. Without NPPs (with all drawbacks) that goal is further away (with all unreliabilities of PV/wind sources).

Of course, we can put draconian restrictions on electricity consumption, say, 10kWh/person/month (heh, I would love to see that...) with consequential rise in price for every 1kWh/person/month by 2 - quite incentive, isn't it?

Sorry I don't agree with the need for nuclear, when you can't deal with the waste from 50years of nuclear you cannot afford to generate more.

I forsee massive engineering efforts to roll out huge windfarms and solar generators (solar thermal) in relatively uninhabited places. As none esturine tidal matures this will take up the base load needs of the system and make renewables the only sensible solution. The whole network will be linked across the continent of Eurasia by massive HVDC lines. This is not a dream since the HVDC network is already been built across Europe as we speak.

Nuclear costs to much, takes to long and has inherent unavoidable risks which will never go away.

Having friendly mutual relations with North Africa and Russia will be essential since this is where much of the generating capacity will have to be located.

Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I don't agree with the need for nuclear, when you can't deal with the waste from 50years of nuclear you cannot afford to generate more.

[...]

Todays waste, tomorrow might be the source of energy.

[...]

I forsee massive engineering efforts to roll out huge windfarms and solar generators (solar thermal) in relatively uninhabited places. As none esturine tidal matures this will take up the base load needs of the system and make renewables the only sensible solution. The whole network will be linked across the continent of Eurasia by massive HVDC lines. This is not a dream since the HVDC network is already been built across Europe as we speak.

[...]

Yes, such lines are being built. But, still, its far far far (many decades) away from real demand.

[...]

Nuclear costs to much, takes to long and has inherent unavoidable risks which will never go away.

[...]

Sometimes higher price for electricity is better than without electricity at all.

[...]

Having friendly mutual relations with North Africa and Russia will be essential since this is where much of the generating capacity will have to be located.

Br Cornelius

We reached the point of the most importance. Until, IMHO, we have single political/economical entity in that area, it remains utopia (for reliable energy production/distribution).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Todays waste, tomorrow might be the source of energy.

Yes, such lines are being built. But, still, its far far far (many decades) away from real demand.

Sometimes higher price for electricity is better than without electricity at all.

We reached the point of the most importance. Until, IMHO, we have single political/economical entity in that area, it remains utopia (for reliable energy production/distribution).

It a matter of fair trade and mutual respect. These countries will benefit massively for one and all we will have to do is deal fairly with them for a change.

And they have been working on waste eating nuclear for decades without the slightest hint that they can make it cost effective enough to be viable in the open market. Nuclear waste is here to stay and thats an unfortunate fact we will have to deal with for millenia to come.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It a matter of fair trade and mutual respect. These countries will benefit massively for one and all we will have to do is deal fairly with them for a change.

[...]

Propose realistic solution (not just idealistic thoughts) and you will get Nobel prize in economics/peace/(heck... prize committee will come up with new one)...

[...]

And they have been working on waste eating nuclear for decades without the slightest hint that they can make it cost effective enough to be viable in the open market. Nuclear waste is here to stay and thats an unfortunate fact we will have to deal with for millenia to come.

Br Cornelius

Thing is, you can put waste at temporary storage units until you carry it to the "grave" today, or tomorrow, or... Try one day (every week/month, in addition to casual blackouts due to storms, etc) without electricity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.