Is Fracking Causing Political Divides in Red and Blue States?

  • News
  • Thread starter D H
  • Start date
In summary, the new lawsuit in Texas is against a water tower that is being built as part of fracking operations. The plaintiffs are mostly wealthy conservatives, and they are upset because they don't want to have a fracking water tower in their back yard. The lawsuit is hypocritical because the plaintiffs are also complaining about noise and pollution from fracking, which will inevitably result. The plaintiffs are also hurting protesters who are against fracking, just as much as they are hurting themselves.
  • #1
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,464
690
There's a new lawsuit against fracking in Texas. Apparently the cranky plaintiffs don't want a fracking water tower built in their back yards and don't want the noise pollution and water pollution that will inevitably result from the subsequent fracking operations.

So is this just another lawsuit motivated by left wing opponents to fracking? No, it's not. The plaintiffs are Richard K. and Susan D. Armey; Bar RR Ranches, LLC and its owners, Rex and Renda Tillerson; et. al. Dick Armey -- he was one of the key architects of the "Republican Revolution" that changed Texas from a blue state to a red state. Dick Armey voted NO on raising CAFE standards; NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR, NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. He has repeatedly advocated for exploring proven energy reserves and thereby keeping energy prices low.

Rex Tillerson -- He's the CEO of Exxon-Mobil. Exxon-Mobil has profited massively from fracking, but apparently not if those fracking operations involve the CEO's back yard.


The lawsuit: http://www.scribd.com/doc/208446910/Water-Tower-Lawsuit

This is a bit too hypocritical even for Forbes and the Wall Street Journal: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...but-frack-it-in-his-own-backyard-and-he-sues/ and http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052702304899704579391181466603804.html
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Over the rears I have come to realize that everyone is a NIMBY if, (it)= most anything, is actually going to be in their back yard.
 
  • #3
NIMBY truly knows no political bounds, but I for one and quite happy to have a couple of nuclear plant cooling towers in view from my bedroom window.

What I like less is the piece of HVAC equipment on the roof of an industrial plant a half a mile away, currently keeping me up. Sound ordinances are what they are and there shouldn't be a need for a lawsuit unless they aren't being followed.

Someone really should explain to this guy the concept of shooting yourself in the foot though...

...on the other hand, doesn't this hurt frivolous anti-fracking protesters just as much?
 
  • #4
D H said:
There's a new lawsuit against fracking in Texas...

In the 30 page lawsuit, there is a one sentence tangential mention of possible "noise nuisance and traffic" from fracking trucks on a nearby road (pg 17). The suit is almost entirely about the visual impact of a permanent 160' water tower under construction immediately adjacent the plaintiff's property, which the plaintiff claims are in violation of preexisting zoning and other agreements.

The WSJ reporter also states:
...Mr. Tillerson, 61 years old, moved to Bartonville in 2001 and became CEO in 2006. Since 2007, companies have fracked at least nine shale wells within a mile of the Tillerson home, according to Texas regulatory and real-estate records.

Neither the WSJ story or the lawsuit claim there will be inevitable water pollution from fracking.

The other reference is not from a Forbes reporter, but a self-labeled op/ed from Ungar, the self-labeled leftist comic book executive.
 

What is fracking?

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a method of extracting natural gas or oil from shale rock formations deep underground. It involves injecting a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals at high pressure into the rock to create fractures, allowing the gas or oil to flow out and be collected.

Why is fracking controversial?

Fracking is controversial because it has been linked to potential environmental and health risks. These include air and water pollution, earthquakes, and the release of greenhouse gases. Additionally, fracking requires a large amount of water and can contribute to the depletion of local water sources.

How does fracking impact the environment?

The environmental impacts of fracking can vary depending on the location and practices used. However, some common effects include air pollution from emissions and methane leaks, water contamination from spills or leaks, and the disruption of natural habitats and ecosystems. Fracking can also contribute to climate change through the release of greenhouse gases.

Is fracking safe?

There is ongoing debate about the safety of fracking. Proponents argue that it has been used for decades without significant incidents and that regulations and best practices can mitigate potential risks. However, opponents point to numerous cases of water contamination and other negative impacts, and argue that the long-term effects of fracking are not fully understood.

What are the alternatives to fracking?

There are several alternatives to fracking for extracting natural gas or oil. These include renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, as well as more traditional methods such as drilling for conventional oil and gas. Some also argue for reducing overall energy consumption and transitioning to a more sustainable energy system rather than relying on fossil fuels.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top