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!!!

[StripedCow]

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!!!

[TheGratefulNet]

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!!!

[Ex-MislTech]

No no no, they physically worked hard enough to park $32 trillion offshore with IRS immunity.

http://www.democraticundergrou...

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!!!

[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!!!

[hey!]

It's like my uncle Ivan, an old-time red used to say to me. "Kid, nobody believes in socialism. Nobody believes in capitalism either. It's 'Socialism for me, capitalism for you."

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

[Newander]

I wouldn't have had to make my bed if only we had the gold standard! Fiat currency causes dirty dishes.

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

[blue trane]

I think garment workers in Bangladesh know something about having no options to escape building fires.

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

[Dishevel]

He is not suing to stop the fracking. He is suing to not have a water tower built near his property.

The utility says it needs to build more due to increased water demand due to the fracking.

I hate it when people lie to prove a point. It makes their point suspect. Even if I were on the Anti-Fracking side I would not want an article like this to make my side look like lying, underhanded dipshits.

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

[Nimey]

So basically he's suing to stop the fracking, because without that water tower they can't frack on that land.

The tower is an excuse.

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

[the gnat]

Name me a rich, non-white CEO/trust fund baby/rich asshole family that is doing anything like this.

I don't think Stanley O'Neal has done anything exactly like this, but he's an excellent example of a plutocrat with no shame, humility, or sense of self-awareness, and a now-legendary asshole responsible for destroying countless billions of other people's investments. He's also black.

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

[Dishevel]

Your proof is where? I am not saying that he is ok with or not ok with fracking in his area. The only proof I have though is he does not want a water tower and noisy trucks near his land. I can understand this.

There is no proof offered one way or the other on his feelings toward fracking in the area though and to imply otherwise is disingenuous at best.

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

[wiredlogic]

The problem with unions is that they are a useful idea that has been subverted into a money making scheme for the people running them. They are now a symbol of waste and greed rather than liberation. Some smug internet Libertarians recognize them for what they are.

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!!!

[Sponge Bath]

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

Pepperidge Farms remembers. Now back to the cookie mines with you!

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

[Nimey]

roffle. That's straight out of "Mises.org Talking Points 101", especially the "go read a book, you ignorant person, because I can't be bothered to make cogent arguments" bit at the end.

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.

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

[whitroth]

Really? And on what basis do you assert this? What's the income of the union presidents?

Yep, unions are a waste of time... of course, you like working 60+ hour weeks with declining benifits (if you have any), and decreasing vacation days (or, since they've done the "modern" thing, and merged your sick time with your vacation time to be "paid time off", don't get sick).

And btw, I googled what "exempt salaried" meant in the US, legally... and found that there's a *special* exemption for computer people, meaning they can say "whatever it takes", and claim the benifits of having you salaried... and not paying you for, say, snow days, meaning you're really just hourly, with no chance of a union.

There are two kinds of Republicans and Libertarians: millionaires, and suckers.

                        mark

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

[AK Marc]

When it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

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

[hypergreatthing]

Gov't workers haven't gotten pensions since the mid 80s. Only the lowest paid workers still get that option, everyone else gets a 402b or whatever the respective retirement option that closely resembles what a 401k is.
You also must have the preconceived notion that the concept of upper management who gets paid grossly more than the standard rank and file employee doesn't exist in the public sector.

You would be greatly mistaken. The same issues come up in both private and public now a days.

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

[Nimey]

The objection to the public sector having unions has a whiff of "why, I don't get those kinds of benefits anymore (now that my workplace has been de-unionized and partially outsourced to the third world), so why should those people?".

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

[AK Marc]

Then Forbes lied. They indicate that he joined a more general suit against the frackers once the suit against the water tower failed.

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

[un1nsp1red]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

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

[Maxo-Texas]

I thought that was an interesting question!

http://www.publicintegrity.org...

The Center for Public Integrity found compensation for leaders of the 10 largest unions ranged from $173,000 at the United Auto Workers to $618,000 at the Laborersâ(TM) International Union of North America and almost $480,000 for the president of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees. The latter is the target of GOP governors in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee and Kansas.

Wowsers! $618,000 dollars a year!!!

---

Productivity improvements via robotics and automation are destroying jobs quickly now--- and the pace is increasing. As you would suspect, these industries do not employ nearly as many people as they replace.

The only solution I can see is to lower the "full time" work week AND to stop abuse of the "exempt" status. Unless a person founded/owns the business or directly manages at least three other people who they make hiring/firing/promotion/salary decisions for- they should not be classified as "exempt" and any work they do over 45 hours a week should qualify for overtime. Any work past 55 hours a week should qualify for double time.

The 40 hour work week and overtime was created to tighten up employment in the first time. Lowering the work week and removing the abuse of the "exempt" status is a logical next step.

Because within 25 year- if you don't, you are looking at a minimum of 20% unemployment- even if you have a degree with good grades.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ....

[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.

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:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!!

[jythie]

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!!!

[garyisabusyguy]

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!!!

[Oligonicella]

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

Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!!

[Ex-MislTech]

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!!!

[taiwanjohn]

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!!!

[erikkemperman]

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!!!

[blue trane]

Isn't this the same argument used by the tobacco companies for years, while they suppressed scientific evidence?

Re:NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!!

[dywolf]

ya, all those woman who developed cancer, or had their implants burst inside their bodies, sending silicon into various random places or simply making their chests look like golf balls.....they were all faking it.

thought experiment: lets pump water and chemicals into the ground at high pressure specifically for the purpose of fracturing the rock to release entrapped natural gas. the water slurry even helps push it out by displacing it (ie: flowing into the cracks). the entire process rests on the principle of cracking rocks and having water (with chemicals) flow into said cracks.

so just where in hell do you think that water goes?

there's 2 possible answers, both of which are unsatisfactory:
1) into groundwater tables and acquifers (water bearing layers of rock)
2) who knows because at the depths and scales we're talking about, no one really knows with certainity how far the newly created fractures lead*, and whether it connects with a acquifer.

*we do know (regardless of industry claims otherwise) that the fractures are sufficient in size and depth to relieve stresses in the crust triggering earthquakes, so the idea they connect to acquifers is hardly far fetched.

short version: the only wacky person here is you.
and don't make fun of Meryl Streep, she's probably the world's greatest living actress.

nimby

[rossdee]

I take it its not his company thats doing the fraking

Ridiculous.

[StrangeBrew]

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.

[StrangeBrew]

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.

[blue trane]

No water tower, no fracking. He doesn't like a particular side effect of fracking. But he fights others who don't like other side effects.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Exxon MOBIL

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

[garyisabusyguy]

I wondered if Exxon was getting into the cell phone business

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?

Re:Not fracking, a water tower

[Rob the Bold]

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 on this.

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.

Re:misleading

[coldsalmon]

Here is a copy of the complaint: http://online.wsj.com/public/r...
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

[T.E.D.]

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....

"To Stop Fracking"?

[Sigmon]

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"?

[amiga3D]

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"?

[Ex-MislTech]

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"?

[dwpro]

How do you mean, no such thing? The Act clearly added an exclusion for "The underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities." from being defined as "UNDERGROUND INJECTION", and subject to the corresponding regulation.

Re:"To Stop Fracking"?

[liquidsin]

Can you point out to me where in the document you link for "Haliburton Loophole" it says that that's a myth? All I see is the Energy Policy Act of 2005; Section 322 of that document indicates that ‘‘(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.’’ are exempted from the "Underground Injection" provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Additionally the Clean Water Act was amended to clarify that "water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas..." are NOT classified as pollutants. These two things together seem to indicate that they can in fact pump whatever they'd like into wells to facilitate oil production, even if it's not labeled specifically as "The Haliburton Loophole". Am I missing something?

He is in the title fight.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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.

First person account

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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/...

Re:First person account

[geekoid]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Your link is horrid. The use of strikeout to only something is crappy and poor journalism. Also, factually incorrect.

NIMB

[sociocapitalist]

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

Lying, Murdering OIl & Gas Companies

[Ex-MislTech]

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/...

Here in the US go back to Karen Silkwood, though there have been others
more recent that were less sloppy in their cover up.

Re:Is Exxon Mobile a new phone company?

[omnichad]

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

Re:Read the summary

[oh_my_080980980]

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...

Re:Racist.

[Nimey]

Rightly or wrongly, it's shorthand for "privileged majority".

FTFA

[colin_faber]

It seems this guy could careless about the fracking operation it self. He's more concerned about the huge blight that a massive ugly ass water tower will bring. There's no reason (other than cost) the well owners can't just truck water in. Honestly I don't blame the guy, I wouldn't want this ugly ass water tower in my back yard either, however a well generating millions of dollars of gas for me to spend on more computers? No problem at all.

No poorer neighborhoods

[bandwannabe]

There ARE no poor neighborhoods near this house. Bartonville, TX is upper-middle class suburbia.