Exxon CEO Comes Out Against Fracking Project Because It Will Affect His Property Values

a reply to: olaru12

I'm beginning to wonder about your agenda....

You just posted a thread claiming 'Exxon CEO Comes Out Against Fracking' when it would have taken you less then 10 minutes to find out that this is not true. I don't expect people like Tillerson to be honest individuals, but i would expect that from everyone who does not believe the ends justify the means.

a reply to: theantediluvian


When the story first made headlines earlier this year i spend half a day trying to find out what the whole thing was really about, because i wanted to know. I read all the transcripts from town meetings, the court filings, e-mail exchanges between town municipal administrators and the water company etc. It didn't take long to understand why it was so tempting for some media organisations to spin the story into a fracking lawsuit.

Here's an update from April this year, i haven't seen this before.

Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp., and his wife, Renda, dropped out of the lawsuit trying to stop construction of a water tower near their Bartonville ranch.

www.bizjournals.com...

So not just wrong, but also outdated.

a reply to: Millers

Thanks for updating us and I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't take note of the February publication date! It doesn't do anything to improve my opinion of Rex Tillerson or Dick Armey, but it does render Rex's involvement a moot point now.

a reply to: olaru12
String him up, and everyone like him.

a reply to: olaru12

Well done!! You've played into the Exxon C.E.O.'s hands perfectly just as he planned it.

The BIG oil companies, including Exxon, does their planning/oil development based on 50 year projections.

They had it made. They had their buddies, the environmental crowd, locking down all sorts of oil exploration. It was perfect. It drove up the price of oil and their profits to record levels.

Their projected returns on the new and slower development of already known reserves was a shoe-in to maintain continued record returns for the big oil companies.

Until Fracking.....

All of a sudden, the smaller to outright small oil outfits were, with this technology, driving DOWN the projected returns of the 'Big Guys". The asset to risk ratio was sent crashing. OPEC, the natural gas crowd, the Saudis, all doubled their Prozac dosages.

All of the above, INCLUDING THE CEO OF EXXON, want as much bad PR for fracking as they can muster..

The environmental crowd is the perfect tool to attempt re-establishing 'order' to their futures.

You played right into their hands......

a reply to: nwtrucker

I know it's a difficult concept but when fracking pollutes ground water and aquifers and in fact poisons what we drink;
then that's a problem.

G5ptavYnUBMwww.businessinsider.com/fracking-poison-pennsylvania-water-2012-11


grist.org...

a reply to: olaru12

Not difficult a concept whatsoever.

What's difficult is the unending, without exception attacks on the oil industry.

Especially when even the EPA cleared the initial 'claim' of ground pollution in Pa.

Subsequent 'charges' based on ground water tests after fracking, but without matching tests BEFORE fracking. In other words, zero proof the pollution wasn't there from some other activity or even naturally occurring as researched proved out in at least one, perhaps two Colorado eg.s

Truth be told, I really don't discount the possibility. It's also true I trust the vested interests of the Greens no more than I do the oil crowd.

In my mind, the jury is still out.

P.S. Your response shows my post is a 'difficut' concept to grasp as well.....

originally posted by: nwtrucker






P.S. Your response shows my post is a 'difficut' concept to grasp as well.....

I'd be interested in your response to this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: olaru12

I gave the thread about a 30 second look. Snorted and exited.

Sigh, in the interests of honest dialogue, I will explain my personal views on this and virtually every topic that ATS covers.
(If your not really interested, then ignore the rest. LOL)

I do not trust links or quotes.

First, quotes are almost always out of context.

Second, "Links", are generally used as debate points/talking points and rarely-in my experience-provide valid, verifiable data. (The exceptions prove the rule, IMO).

There is no point in trusting a link to an individual that also has a vested interest that matches the argument of the original poster. Especially, when there's no way to easily verify/debunk that link or it's data.

No, this isn't foolproof. Valid links suffer guilt by association.

As a result, I prefer dialogue. ( Those that attempt to use 'dialogue' in an attempt to push an agenda prove out quickly and that ends the pretense.)

Occam's Razor is my 'bible' when it comes to these debates.

So back to the thread. LOL.

I posed my points to show a 'possible' alternative. Supported by my own logic. It proofs nothing. It does, however, gives those who aren't suffering from "idee fixe" a moment of pause....I hope.

So we have a CEO of a huge Corporation-the absolute top of the Corporate food chain stupidly suing to stop fracking and giving ammunition to his so-called adversaries?

Occam's razor-simplest explanation: He intended this. It was deliberate. He is against fracking as anyone.

Am I right? Who knows? The remainder of the 'Razor' now applies...

Last point. By sheer chance-fate?- I met an extremely powerful oil industry individual a few years back in Alaska who, during a conversation, causally stated "the Oil Industry is not monolithic".

There was more to it-I will P.M. it if your interested, as it's lengthy and off topic- but that epiphany led to a series of realizations of how this planet really works, by the way.

Re fracking? The jury is still out...