Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Exxon Mobile CEO Sues To Stop Fracking Near His Texas Ranch

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the hoisting-with-his-own-petard dept.

Businesses 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."

cancel ×

317 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46322949)

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!!! (5, Insightful)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | about 7 months ago | (#46323089)

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!!! (4, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 7 months ago | (#46323297)

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!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323323)

I don't think anyone directly remembers those outrages, no :P

Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (5, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about 7 months ago | (#46323835)

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!!! (2, Insightful)

StripedCow (776465) | about 7 months ago | (#46323127)

These CEOs worked hard for their privileges.
You can start moaning when your salary is 1000x the average.

Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323315)

Yeah, they worked hard fucking everyone else over.

Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (2)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | about 7 months ago | (#46323389)

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:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323435)

Did you forgot to add "This is what Libertarians actually believe"?

Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323653)

You misspelled "Republicans".

Is Exxon Mobile a new phone company? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323289)

How much do family data plans cost on Exxon Mobile? Is it related to the company Exxon Mobil?

Re:Is Exxon Mobile a new phone company? (3, Funny)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#46323543)

See...the Internet is kind of like a pipeline...

Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323345)

Reminds me of how the Kennedy family fought against off-shore wind power because it would ruin their view from their vacation home.

Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (1)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | about 7 months ago | (#46323405)

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:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323581)

Rich, white hypocrites?

Are you trying to sneakily imply that people of color are all honest straight dope people?

Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323703)

Hell yeah, just take a look at OJ Simpson, Chris Brown, Kanye West and Barack Obama. They are pinnacles of truth and ethics that a mere white person could never touch.

Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323755)

Of course. Do you believe otherwise? Are you racist? Please report to the nearest reeducation camp.

Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323799)

Nope, but pretty much all of these rich assholes are old, white guys.

Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (1)

swb (14022) | about 7 months ago | (#46323791)

I have no problem with the hypocrisy part of it, but what does the white part have to do with it?

Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323815)

Name me a rich, non-white CEO/trust fund baby/rich asshole family that is doing anything like this. When you can't name one then you'll know the answer.

Re:Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323915)

I'm sorry I had to mark you as troll instead of funny, but you unfairly lump White and rich.

fracking should be done where it should be .... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46322955)

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 .... (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 7 months ago | (#46323007)

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.

momkind; spiritual vortex to repel genociders (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46322965)

dark matters; rat's bail first. WMD cabal minions have been spotted jumping out of windows with rat's in their mouths & their butts on fire... there's no shame in hiding...

NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46322981)

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!!! (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 7 months ago | (#46323091)

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!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323159)

You can't cite one legitimate (peer reviewed) study showing that Fracking pollutes the water table. The EPA claimed to have one with great fanfare but never submitted it to peer review and ultimate shut up about it altogether. Hint: stupid films by partisan hacks don't count.

You and your friends are just as wacky as Meryl ("What are we doing to our Chiiiildreeen?") Streep and all the nut jobs suing over silicone implants, which have been proven to NOT be dangerous.

Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (2, Insightful)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | about 7 months ago | (#46323235)

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:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (2, Insightful)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 7 months ago | (#46323269)

"see we call all shill for fun and profit" - irony. Your post was no more substantive than his/hers.

Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323607)

Cite or shut the fuck up.

Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (0)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | about 7 months ago | (#46323701)

Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323805)

*Yawn*.

Let me know when you decide to engage. Until then, you are a waste of space.

Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (0)

Kohath (38547) | about 7 months ago | (#46323753)

His unsubstantiated claim was in reply to another unsubstantiated claim. And now your reply is an ad hominem, claiming people are getting paid for "shilling" on this thread.

Why are these discussions always so plagued with shallow fanboys?

Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (3, Informative)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | about 7 months ago | (#46323427)

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!!! (3, Interesting)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 7 months ago | (#46323895)

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:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (3, Funny)

jythie (914043) | about 7 months ago | (#46323205)

Something I find ironic is that one of the classic libertarian arguments I hear about NIMBY is that if one is unhappy with what one's neighbors are doing one should use their economic resources to move. Here we have someone with more then enough cash to move where ever they want, but they still want to control what their neighbors are doing with their land.

Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (0)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 7 months ago | (#46323515)

What the government is doing with their land.

Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (2)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about 7 months ago | (#46323519)

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) are left to do what they want, as long as they aren't bothering the neighbors, but the big players are held to a higher standard. It's not perfect, of course, but the system works.

Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#46323555)

Except the CEO was actually more worried about the water tower being built next door than the water table.

Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 7 months ago | (#46323541)

Just like the rich ecofreaks suing to stop wind farms off Martha's Vinyard.

How many of those rich ecofreaks got rich selling windfarms ?

Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (1)

Kohath (38547) | about 7 months ago | (#46323627)

None. They didn't produce anything or work to earn their money at all. They inherited it.

Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323881)

How many rich ecofreaks exist? None?

Plus look at the envy of the rich here: "rich ecofreaks" got rich by *selling something they owned*.

nimby (3, Insightful)

rossdee (243626) | about 7 months ago | (#46322995)

I take it its not his company thats doing the fraking

Exxon (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323135)

Yea, and if this guy loses, I wouldn't be surpirsed if we see in the biz press that, "Exxon Mobile is purchasing fracking companies in Texas. Plans on reducing fracking in some areas to save the environment."

And the purchase of the company to save HIS property will be done with shareholder money - money that belongs to all of us plebes with our expensive 401Ks (via the expensive crappy mutual funds we have to buy)

Re:nimby (1, Insightful)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | about 7 months ago | (#46323139)

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:nimby (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 7 months ago | (#46323313)

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...).

In the interest of national security (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323019)

We should also use his land as a nuclear waste repository.

How selfish of him to stand in the way of progress!

Ridiculous. (3, Insightful)

StrangeBrew (769203) | about 7 months ago | (#46323051)

It's crap like this that makes thinking individuals question the integrity of 'enviro-kooks'. Why would you put a title claiming that this CEO is suing to stop fracking, when your own summary makes it clear it's about the proximity of a water tower to his property?

Re:Ridiculous. (0)

Desler (1608317) | about 7 months ago | (#46323115)

Because you didn't click the Forbes link which is about him joining a lawsuit over fracking near his home? Apparently basic literacy isn't your strong suit.

Re:Ridiculous. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 7 months ago | (#46323197)

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:Ridiculous. (2)

StrangeBrew (769203) | about 7 months ago | (#46323539)

I one-upped you. Not only did I click on the Forbes article, I also read it. Once again it states that he is suing to stop the building of a water tower. Again, continue to warp the facts to make your point and you will continue to lose the support of thinking individuals. I happen to be against fracking. I used to work for a company that tested the composition of experimental frack fluids, I am horrified by what these oil companies are willing to inject into the ground, repercussions be damned. I also happen to be against manipulative crap being posted when there is factual information that will better support your cause.

Re:Ridiculous. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323793)

Fracking lowers property values

some do not survive reading the manual (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323053)

book of debt & death, no one is exempt http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nazi%20zion%20book%20death&sm=3 some go insane, off themselves... others go about their dark tasks as instructed... yikes almighty

"Mobile"...Really? C'mon guys... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323077)

"Mobile"...Really? C'mon guys...

Exxon MOBIL

Re:"Mobile"...Really? C'mon guys... (3, Funny)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | about 7 months ago | (#46323171)

I wondered if Exxon was getting into the cell phone business

Re:"Mobile"...Really? C'mon guys... (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 7 months ago | (#46323605)

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:"Mobile"...Really? C'mon guys... (1)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | about 7 months ago | (#46323717)

Um, yeah, Enron was getting into telecom (according to their propaganda) circa 1999

Re:"Mobile"...Really? C'mon guys... (1)

coldsalmon (946941) | about 7 months ago | (#46323513)

No, they obviously meant to say Exxonmobile. Like Batmobile.

Not fracking, a water tower (5, Insightful)

Sez Zero (586611) | about 7 months ago | (#46323109)

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?

So how would he like a fracking tower? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323295)

Moreover, the reason for the tower (and its size) is that fracking requires water, which water towers provide.

More fracking, more towers needed.

Re:So how would he like a fracking tower? (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 7 months ago | (#46323839)

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 delivered to the well head by tanker truck and not the water mains.

Re:Not fracking, a water tower (4, Informative)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 7 months ago | (#46323327)

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:Not fracking, a water tower (1)

Petron (1771156) | about 7 months ago | (#46323761)

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:Not fracking, a water tower (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 7 months ago | (#46323751)

Yeah he's not against the fracking (unless he's doing this in a deliberately roundabout way) but it's definitely a. two-faced NIMBY action.

misleading (4, Insightful)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | about 7 months ago | (#46323117)

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 (4, Informative)

coldsalmon (946941) | about 7 months ago | (#46323477)

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:misleading (2)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 7 months ago | (#46323673)

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....

Re: misleading (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323715)

Utility or city owned plant almost always doesn't follow "the rules". It's a Water Tower. It needs to be a certain height to properly do its job. As a regulated utility, they get to put their stuff where it works correctly for Geographic/geologic needs of pumping water.

For people that actually do work there, a water tower being close would improve property values if you were actually ranching and needed a steady supply of water for your animals.

It's related to fracking, because water is a vital utility part of the process. If I were the utility company, if pay the water trucks supplying that mine to drive extra miles by this guys house everyday, because without the water tower trucks are driving by somebody's house that don't need to be.

"To Stop Fracking"? (5, Informative)

Sigmon (323109) | about 7 months ago | (#46323125)

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!

Re:"To Stop Fracking"? (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about 7 months ago | (#46323193)

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"? (4, Interesting)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | about 7 months ago | (#46323447)

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"? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 7 months ago | (#46323687)

DO NOT watch the film "gasland".
It is full of lies, inaccuracy and misleading examples.
Horrid.

"has been hired to poo poo the film because it might hurt their business."
ah, so people who dislike lies and factual inaccuracies are part of a big conspiracy. Riiiight.

Some examples:
Water on fire: this is a known phenomena the predates fracking. If it was caused by fracking, it would take 1000's of years to go from the source to the water. The shot they get that from was no where near any fracking.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/... [dailykos.com]
http://www.skepticblog.org/tag... [skepticblog.org]

Haliburton Loophole: No such thing.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/P... [gpo.gov]

Re:"To Stop Fracking"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323335)

From the Lawsuit, it is only one line and they appear to be unable to spell fracking right:

6.04 "Furthermore, upon information and belief, BWSC will sell water to oil and gas explorers for fracing shale formations leading to traffic with heavy trucks on FM 407, creating a noise nuisance and traffic hazards."

The whole lawsuit gives the impression that these people are some whiny ass motherfuckers that really want their environment to stay clean of any noise or visual disturbances.

So would a lot of people now living next to an oil or gas field!!

This may be the best thing to do, find all the CEO's and start drilling right next to them. If I had the money I wouldn't even care if there is oil or gas at all. Just the drilling will shake up these assholes

Re:"To Stop Fracking"? (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 7 months ago | (#46323879)

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. (3, Informative)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 7 months ago | (#46323145)

I think he is fighting for the title for the "Biggest Corporate Jerk". Apparently he showed up for the town hall meeting. Was treated like royalty and was allowed to talk for far longer than the 3 minutes given to mere ordinary citizens of the town. And most of the others spoke about the loss of property values and the damage caused to air and water of the town etc. This jerk mostly talked about how much money he had spent in building his private deck off his home, how he would like to invite guests and how they all would be affected by the hideous water tower spoiling their view while they were enjoying whatever guests to private deck of billionaires enjoy. I am sure it is not WD-40 flavored water or kerosene infused tea or Motor-oil mojitos.

Still he can't beat "distressed babies" CEO of AOL.

Re:He is in the title fight. (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 7 months ago | (#46323905)

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..

spaceace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323153)

Hey next time you write an article its Exxon Mobile.... that totally discredits this article because the person is an idiot...

No Empathy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323165)

... till it happens to you!

Owned (0)

Sla$hPot (1189603) | about 7 months ago | (#46323175)

Time to wake up and smell the Coffee + methane

"I love the smell of mehane in the morning"

Re:Owned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323919)

Time to wake up and smell the Coffee + methane

"I love the smell of mehane in the morning"

Been eating beans for dinner eh? Glad you like it.

First person account (4, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 7 months ago | (#46323189)

It was posted to dailykos, where the liberals congregate and dominate. But still, this is a first person account of an earlier town hall meeting: http://www.dailykos.com/story/... [dailykos.com]

Re:First person account (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 7 months ago | (#46323713)

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.

NIMBY (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323219)

This is not about rich or poor. This is a plain old NIMBY issue. Whoever has the biggest opposition and the most time to spend arguing has a better chance of winning.

My area is all individual well water and no city water at all. We have several water towers around the fringes of our rural area. The people that do actually have city water that live in the new big housing developments did not want them in their back yard so they put them here. They have more people that live in a single cul-de-sac then we have in a 1 sq mile area. They were more organized than we were, we lost.

Getting off topic but same thing I see in my county.
It's actually kind of funny. We have 10-50 acre plots where I live and in between quite a few of them are water towers and huge multifield soccer fields. The people that use the soccer fields and the water from the tanks live from 3-15 miles away.
As for the soccer fields, I went to a few of the county meetings about those. That was not pushed by the residents of those areas, it was the developers. They did not want to use precious residential capable land they could build more houses on for recreation so they made a questionable deal with the county to buy rural agricultural land 10 miles away and put the fields here. This was NOT the original approved plan and the recreation areas were supposed to be integrated into the whole development. I'm sure the developers wallet was open during these negotiations because the counties reasoning for allowing it was not consistent.
   

Re:NIMBY (1)

steak (145650) | about 7 months ago | (#46323787)

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.

NIMB (4, Funny)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about 7 months ago | (#46323239)

Someone should buy this cunt a pizza and coke and tell him to shut the fuck up and stop being such a hypocrite.

Re:NIMB (0, Offtopic)

geekoid (135745) | about 7 months ago | (#46323729)

The use of that word makes women uncomfortable. Please be courteous with your language.

Getting fat on delicious irony! Yum! (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 7 months ago | (#46323281)

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 track.

The reality of all of this is none of these people will learn anything from their lessons. They believe this is how the world SHOULD and DOES work. Forget about tenets of civilization such as not doing to people that which you wouldn't want done to you. Those notions are for non-sociopaths. They believe everyone should simply get and take what they can. If they can get it, they deserve it. So what they will learn, if anything at all, is that "it's fair because it even happens to him" which will somehow empower and even entitle this fracking-arse-hole to continue at his job.

And the gun-grabber? Seems he's not giving up on his gun-grabbing even though he is victim on his own ridiculous law. Conviction under this law will result in his permanent ineligibility to ever carry a weapon again yet somehow I think it may not apply to him in the future. I'm betting after a symbolic punishment and a period of time long enough for his name to disappear from headlines, he will have his record expunged or even have a presidential pardon (Quite likely IMHO) to restore his second amendment "privileges."

(Yes, in quotes... it's a right which the government is NOT at liberty to remove. So says the constitution.)

Re:Getting fat on delicious irony! Yum! (1)

ThatsDrDangerToYou (3480047) | about 7 months ago | (#46323455)

...

The reality of all of this is none of these people will learn anything from their lessons. They believe this is how the world SHOULD and DOES work. Forget about tenets of civilization such as not doing to people that which you wouldn't want done to you. Those notions are for non-sociopaths. They believe everyone should simply get and take what they can. If they can get it, they deserve it.

This is the type of "mental illness" passed down by the privileged to their children. There is no known cure yet!

.. but fuck the 2nd Amendment. Gotcha.

Re:Getting fat on delicious irony! Yum! (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 7 months ago | (#46323649)

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-tags or anything to suggest legitimacy are doing amazingly horrible things with complete impunity.

We need some serious reversals and I think as long as we are teaching sex education to teach people how to use their body's hardware properly and safely, we should be doing the same for guns as well. When I was a child, that was just being phased out... I still have recollection of a JROTC shooting range within one of the schools I attended long ago. No one was horrified there were guns in school then. What has changed? Only the politics and the cultivation of public fear.

Re:Getting fat on delicious irony! Yum! (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 7 months ago | (#46323909)

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,.

Lying, Murdering OIl & Gas Companies (2)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | about 7 months ago | (#46323337)

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.

Epic NIMBY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323343)

Need I say more.

In a nutshell (1)

SeanBlader (1354199) | about 7 months ago | (#46323397)

"Drill baby drill."

Read the summary (0)

RendonWI (958388) | about 7 months ago | (#46323681)

Come one guys, I know fracking is fun to hate on... but this one is just silly. The guy is suing to stop a water tower from being build near his house. He says nothing about stopping fracking. You don't even have to read the article, the summary sums that up nicely. Oh and fuck beta.

Re:Read the summary (2)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 7 months ago | (#46323737)

From the article: "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," So yes it's about fracking....idiot...

He is not concerned about effects on water (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323743)

After all, his water is bottled especially in pure untouched mountain areas and shipped directly to his castle.

NO fracking here??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323829)

It's terrible when something you've so vehemently supported...Comes to fruition in your own back yard then it becomes unacceptable. Hypocrites one and all....

So now he gives a frack... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323863)

Guess it's ok as long as it's not in his own back yard.

Just like the Kennedy's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46323937)

Who have delayed (maybe even stopped) wind farms from being constructed near their ocean front property.. Citing noise - damage to wildlife - the usual...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>