Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: An inconvenient contradiction [View all]toby jo
(1,269 posts)32. The suit is over the devaluation of his property, a 5M ranch.
He is paid 40.3M by Exon, which is staying out of the suit.
The water tower is owned by another company, Cross Timber Water Supply Corp, which has set up operations on his road to supply water to all the frack sites. Sounds like they didn't make the connection, but surprised it wasn't moved.
It was on Think Progress today. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/21/3316881/exxon-ceo-protests-fracking/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Have to admit, when I first heard that, way back when, it really pissed me off.
pangaia
Feb 2014
#26
Kennedy may have had very good reasons. The Cape Cod ecosystem is incredibly fragile.
merrily
Feb 2014
#37
that also is possible .... I will admit that I was really pissed when I first
littlewolf
Feb 2014
#42
And I thought I was good at keeping my work life and my home life separated.
A Simple Game
Feb 2014
#15
I wonder what the basis for his suit is? You cant frack near the personal property of the
rhett o rick
Feb 2014
#31