
Exxon CEO sues against fracking in his own backyard - ColinWright
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/02/22/exxon-ceo-profits-huge-as-americas-largest-natural-gas-producer-but-frack-it-in-his-own-backyard-and-he-sues/print/
======
ck2
By the way, another problem they recently discovered is that states are
ignoring or not properly doing air quality testing around fracking and some
seriously bad chemicals are being released into the air.

It is insane how we are going gung-ho into this with basically the whole USA
as a testing ground, so what if it causes cancer clusters a decade later, the
wells and the owners will be long gone.

~~~
sentenza
It's also wreaking geopolitical havoc. The USA now have a lot of cheap energy
available. Good for them. Bad for the green energy revolution in Europe.

~~~
lugg
How so exactly? Less research funding? Offsetting the global prices making it
cheaper in euro therefore more expensive to go green? Just curious. I wouldn't
have thought it would be that big of a deal.

I also wouldn't call fracking cheap in any sense of the word, far more
expensive than liquid oil extraction and the repercussions of it are at least
somewhat unknown so far. (Yeah yeah I know its totally safe if you do it right
and Exxon et al are soo trustworthy when it comes to this stuff.)

~~~
m_mueller
It's amazing to me how people keep being so ignorant about the likely most
troubling issue for the next two centuries. Climate prognosis for the next 80
years keeps getting worse. The most recent studies suggest one degree of
warming _per decade_ _on average_ , assuming that _CO2 production levels out
just about now_. Until humans are CO2 balanced, every ton we blow into the
atmosphere simply keeps raising temperature with some time delay. 8 degrees
warming on average worldwide means that some outlier regions, potentially the
ones where raising temperatures are the most damaging, will see a temperature
increase of 15 degrees.

We're the frog inside the heating pot, except we even steer the gas burner -
and we're still discussing which way to cook ourselves would be the most
economical.

~~~
lugg
I was halfway through my post when I reworded it to avoid this point. Not
really sure how hn likes the doom talk yet, but seeing as you brought it up..
I watched a ted talk a while back where the speaker basically laid it out like
this:

2 degrees c = screwy weather patterns, extreme storms

4 degrees c = sea level rise, no real seasons anymore, just a big swinging
mess from extreme drought to extreme storms

6 degrees c = mad max

8 degrees c, he basically said humans were long gone at this point.

Remember, 1 degree average = massive localised changes.

Hmm now that I've written all this, I'm not sure, were you speaking in celsius
or fahrenheit?

edit, specified celcius, also I think this may have been the guy but not quite
the same talk
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pznsPkJy2x8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pznsPkJy2x8)

~~~
m_mueller
I was talking Celsius / Kelvin. I'm assuming the speaker was referring to
Fahrenheit - I'm thinking mankind as a whole might be able to survive +8
degree K iff we find efficient synthetic food sources that work in such a
climate (which I assume we will) - however it would probably be at a fraction
of the population we have today - whether our civilization could survive an
indirect genocide on a global scale to have the infrastructure to do this is
another question.

edit: re your edit: if it's true that +6 degrees sets perpetual heating
mechanisms in motion which lead to +12 degrees by 2300 (as suggested in the
ted talk), yes, we probably wouldn't survive +8 in the long run. it's damn
scary, really - if we screw this up in the next 20 years, we basically damn
the whole planet.

~~~
adambard
You mean, mankind might survive +8 degrees F (about +4.5 deg celcius)

~~~
m_mueller
I meant Celsius, but see my edit - I have to revise that guess. Given that +6
degree C will probably cause runaway warming processes to initiate (which I
wasn't thinking about before), surviving for even a few more centuries
suddenly becomes a tough order.

------
roboneal
The actual lawsuit isn't against fracking itself. It is to prevent
construction of a 160 water tower that would be used to fill trucks with water
for fracking and other oil/gas exploration activities and this is in violation
of the existing zoning ordinances in the ranching community in which he lives.

While it appears a subtle distinction to those looking for an example of
glaring hypocrisy, would it be any different if he (and his other rancher
neighbors) were protesting a construction of a 160ft water tower intended for
some other purpose?

~~~
cykod
You do know that there are no communities that have zoning ordinances allowing
160ft water towers, right?

So there's always a variance of some sort involved if fracking is done near
any residential community, but I don't think that's stopped the guy or Dick
before. I still think the hypocrite card can quite validly be played here.

~~~
roboneal
So I can just build my own privately owned 160ft industrial structure wherever
I want?

~~~
jdeibele
In Texas? IANAL, let alone a Texas attorney but
[http://www.bhlaw.net/articles/basics_of_zoning_in_texas.pdf](http://www.bhlaw.net/articles/basics_of_zoning_in_texas.pdf)
seems to say yes.

~~~
roboneal
Seriously? IANAL or a Texas attorney either but I can read...

Page 4...Section 211.003..."The governing body of a municipality may
regulate...the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other
structures"

------
bsbechtel
Just some food for thought here....Many proponents of green energy (e.g., the
Kennedys) in the form of wind farms throughout the Midwest put up a huge fight
when plans for a wind farm off of Nantucket Sound got a little too close to
home for them as well. This doesn't excuse the behavior taking place here, but
it happens on both sides of the aisle.

~~~
Zancarius
Funny, I was just thinking of that when I read this article. This isn't really
so much a matter of hypocritical energy company CEOs as much as it is a
reflection on the behaviors of the rich and privileged.

~~~
scott_karana
I'd say it's the behavior of humans: selfishness is in our nature.

The same situation plays out time and again with cellphone towers. People
bitch about poor coverage, but as soon as a tower is going to be installed in
_their_ neighbourhood... :-)

Similarly, people buy houses under the foot of airport runways, complain about
the noise, and eventually the airports close...

(NIMBY: Not in my backyard)

~~~
Zancarius
I agree completely. It's _almost_ humorous (I've been guilty of thinking some
of these before sooooo...)

Though, I do wonder if it isn't completely selfishness, including instead a
pinch of _resistance to change_ as part of the social recipe that drives us.
In some of my other comments, I've suggested it's entirely greed or selfish
motivations, but reflecting on my own experiences, resistance to change fits
the bill fairly well. (Excepting financial motivation as partial to the cause,
mind you.)

We are creatures of habit, after all.

------
Puer
>You see, while Tillerson believes that the inevitable noise pollution that
accompanies the fracking process—not to mention the potential for water
contamination and other dangerous side-effects even when it is done safely
(and some would strenuously argue that it is not possible to frack safely)— is
of no real significance when it affects someone else’s neighborhood, he surely
thinks it to be a pretty big deal when someone dares to get involved in
fracking in Rex Tillerson’s neighborhood.

I'm 99% certain it's about decreased land values, not any possible
environmental issues.

~~~
adaml_623
I can't tell if you are being serious or not.

Environmental issues include visual and noise pollution of the property and
town. There is no clear line between 'pollution' that is bad for your health
and 'pollution' that is just there descreasing the value of your land.

~~~
Zancarius
> There is no clear line between 'pollution' that is bad for your health and
> 'pollution' that is just there descreasing the value of your land.

It seems you're commenting solely to split hairs. I think Puer is right.

In Mr. Tillerson's case, it's almost certainly a matter of land value. And
probably a little selfishness, i.e. "not in my backyard." Indeed, I wouldn't
be surprised if his concern was _strictly_ a matter of worth and the dollar
value of his property.

~~~
pasbesoin
And all the "little people" whose land value is negatively impacted? They
don't count?

At least this "big guy" can afford to live somewhere else.

Imagine having the environmental concerns, and not being able to sell and get
away from them.

~~~
Zancarius
> And all the "little people" whose land value is negatively impacted? They
> don't count?

I don't see where I said this. I'm not even sure _what_ you're arguing with me
over.

The point is pretty clear, I think. It has more to do with this individual's
greed and probably very little (if any) to do with environmental concerns.

------
a3n
I would hope that anyone in any other community fighting fracking would
reference this lawsuit as evidence that Oil and its executives believe there
are situations where they shouldn't be allowed access, at the least.

------
us0r
You can't make this up. Priceless.

------
sethbannon
Unpalatable but unsurprising hypocrisy.

------
PaulHoule
Scary. This is what happens when people in power don't care if the system
looks legitimate or not.

------
WhatTheFrack
What a fracking joke! Hypocrisy at it's finest folks! This shows just how out
of touch the 1% are with the 99%. ExxonMobil has bullied those cites, counties
& homeowners that have tried to sue them to stop projects like the one Mr.
Tillerson is so outraged about!!! So basically isn't he sorta just suing
himself? People like this don't care about safety regulations, EPA regulations
or people in general. It's the mighty dollar they have a relationship with!
Watch as he uses his money to support a Tea Turd Candidate that wants less
government, like The EPA to further their Fracking Cause. Gullible citizens
that support their hand picked candidates do this by telling what you want
hear not what the candidates are planning on doing once elected. These
vultures just like the Koch Brothers don't care about these citizens they just
want someone(candidate & special interest groups) to do their dirty work. They
bankroll and fund the crap of their hand picked candidates campaigns all the
while hiding in the shadows. They never speak in public or news interviews
because people will do it for them. So my Question Is: "don't those supporting
their idelogy & views realize their supporting something that is against
their(your) best interest?"Wake up these slime balls are buying government to
further their agenda. They want no regulations so they can deepen their
pockets. They could care less about your home, land, town, city, county or
state. Just read about the growing number of earthquakes in Oklahoma! If you
vote for their candidates these scum support then you CAN NOT whine or moan
once a well, water tower, pipeline or project like this runs right through
your community! THINK!!!!' Think before voting this mid-election 2014. They
could give a FRACK about your livelihood.

