Exxon Mobile CEO Sues To Stop Fracking Near His Texas Ranch

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."

Comments

Rich, white hypocrites? Say it aint so!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!!!

[garyisabusyguy]

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!!!

[Nimey]

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!!!

[Nimey]

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!!!

[tomkost]

As a Libertarian, I can say that many of us are completely fine with Unions. People should be free to form groups to achieve common objectives. I do struggle somewhat with unions for public servant though. The reason being is that it's easier for them to be granted their wishes because their pensions and stuff are backed by the full faith and credit of the US or State government. If a company agrees to a certain pension, and then can't afford it later. It has options to either renegotiate the costs or go out of biz. That last option not being generally available or certainly much less desirable to government, means that future generation have to pay for poor choices of the past. The Unions btw, should be able to use their power and finances to influence elections, just as other large companies and groups are currently doing. None of this should be allowed. I'm much against Citizens United. The elections and the government are for the people. These larger groups can agree what they interested in promoting, but the actual funds should come from private citizens.

NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!!!

[i kan reed]

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:fracking should be done where it should be ....

[i kan reed]

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.

Not fracking, a water tower

[Sez Zero]

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?

misleading

[therealkevinkretz]

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.