Drilling in Lethbridge would undo years of city planning by Van E. Christou, March 1, 2014, Lethbridge Herald
I would like to propose an addition to the many reasons why drilling oil wells within the city limits is totally unacceptable. Of course informed and reasonable Lethbridgites do not want their water supply as well as their air supply filled with the poisonous toxins which oil drilling has been shown to emit.
In addition to these reasons for prohibiting oil companies from drilling (especially on our up-wind side) is the oilpatch need for heavy industrial traffic within the city both prior to and following the drilling. The City of Lethbridge has been more careful than most cities to separate its industrial area from the residential. This has greatly enhanced the quality of living in our city. Permitting the GoldenKey project to go ahead will undo and set back years of careful and effective city planning and in effect will turn Lethbridge into a Houston, Texas wannabe.
I think it is time we taxpayers living in Lethbridge let our Premier Redford and her cabinet know that their Texas-like philosophy about allowing oil companies to do anything they wish must end now. Municipalities in Alberta must be given a voice in regulating natural resource development within their borders. Obviously this change will have to begin here in Lethbridge. [Emphasis added]
Rural Alberta says:
March 1, 2014 at 11:47 AM
“the oilpatch need for heavy industrial traffic within the city both prior to and following the drilling.
The City of Lethbridge has been more careful than most cities to separate its industrial area from the residential. This has greatly enhanced the quality of living in our city.
Permitting the GoldenKey project to go ahead will undo and set back years of careful and effective city planning and in effect will turn Lethbridge into a Houston, Texas wannabe.”
Excellent point, and speaking of Texas, according to a lawsuit filed by Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, his wife and neighbours, that heavy industrial traffic – among other things – leads to “unreasonable discomfort,” “annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities,” “fear,” “apprehension,” “offence,” “loss of peace of mind,” “emotional harm,” etc.
“Exxon CEO Joins Suit Citing Fracking Concerns
Residents of Dallas Suburb Fight Construction of Tower That Would Provide Water for Drilling
BARTONVILLE, Texas—One evening last November, a tall, white-haired man turned up at a Town Council meeting to protest construction of a water tower near his home in this wealthy community outside Dallas.
The man was Rex Tillerson, chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp.
He and his neighbors had filed suit to block the tower, saying it is illegal and would create ‘a noise nuisance and traffic hazards,’ in part because it would provide water for use in hydraulic fracturing.”
Terrible when CEO’s and their families are having to endure such “emotional harm” from not being able to enjoy their property, but I guess no one’s immune.
As stated in the lawsuit:
“Plaintiffs have and will continue to be damaged and injured by Defendants’ conduct unless Defendants are restrained and enjoined, and they have no legal remedy sufficient to protect their interests because even though the damages might compensate them for their diminished property values, damages cannot compensate fully for the substantial interference with Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their land by causing unreasonable discomfort and annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities, and damages cannot fully compensate plaintiffs for the emotional harm they have sustained from the deprivation of the enjoyment of their property because of fear, apprehension, offence, loss of peace of mind, visual blight or other similar acts or circumstances.
… The construction of the water tower will create a constant and unbearable nuisance to those that live next to it.
A water tower will have lights on at all hours of the night, traffic to and from the tower at unknown and unreasonable hours, noise from mechanical and electrical equipment needed to maintain and operate the water tower, and creates and unsafe and attractive nuisance to the children of the area.
Furthermore, water towers can create an attractive nesting spot for invasive species of bird and other animals.
These animals will befoul Plaintiffs properties if the water tower is left to stand.
Further, upon information and belief, BWSC will lease or sell rights to third parties for the location of antennas and cell towers.
Furthermore, upon information and belief, BWSC will sell water to oil and gas explorers for fracing shale formations leading to traffic with heavy trucks on FM 407, creating a noise nuisance and traffic hazards.”