You might remember when I begged you to read the pleading in the Haney; Voyles; and Kiskadden versus Range Resources and others case. Well, that case is getting interesting.
As reported by the Marcellus Monitor: Range Resources Calls Subcontractor That Admitted Unreported Spill “Lying Bastards” – Suggests Fracking With Employees’ Bodies. This all has to do with a 21,000 gallon spill of flowback and the subsequent coverup.
Reading the Marcellus Monitor, I was reminded of DoodyGate where a Range Resources contractor dumped sewage in the City of Denton and Range senior VP, Rodney Waller, lied and assisted in the cover up.
Also keep in mind as this case goes forward that it appears Range VP operations, Mike Middlebrooks, lied under oath at a Texas Railroad Commission hearing.
This seems like a good time for another installment of…
Fun with depositions where Q = Albon Head and A = me.
NOTE: Methinks I’ll call this installment the “doth protest too much.”
Q. All right. Let’s look at Exhibit Number 4. Is that your product?
A. Yes.
Q. Is the headline your product?
A. Yes.
Q. And you say, “Range Resources escalates mafia style tactic?”
A. Right.
Q. What–what is a mafia-style tactic?
A. Well, Mafia is an organization or a group that exerts a lot of influence to get their way. It’s not–and Range uses psyops in neighborhoods, and some very aggressive methods to intimidate people. And so, I considered putting a SLAPP suit on landowners as a pretty severe way of intimidating someone.
Q. Are you talking about the Lipskys?
A. Uh huh. (Witness nods head up and down.)
Q. Okay. So–but you said Mafia. The Mafia is an organization that exerts influence?
A. Right.
Q. But–but, Ms. Wilson, the Mafia is the word for a well-known criminal organization, isn’t it?
A. There’s all different–there’s several different definitions of mafia. There’s several different definitions. It can be an organization that exerts a lot of influence.
Q. That’s what you meant by calling them the mafia?
A. Right. And I’m not the first or only person to say that.
I interrupt this deposition transcript to bring you this note:
Fracking Mafia gear is available at OilFieldMafia a Limited Liability Corporation registered with the State of Texas.
Now back to the deposition transcript:
Q. You don’t consider calling a person or organization the Mafia defamatory?
A. No. It’s an industry. No.
…
And then there is a whole bunch of stuff that has to do with psychopaths. (Did you ever read the Forbes article: Why (Some) Psycopaths Make Great CEOs? ) And then a whole bunch of other stuff that is unrelated to the Lipsky case. And then we talk about “gasholes,” which might be my favorite part of the whole deposition. Keep in mind this whole exchange has to do with me using the term gasholes.
Q. Does everyone in the–that reads your blog know that when you refer to gasholes, you’re talking about the whole industry?
A. I don’t use that term, gasholes, anymore. But–
Q. I’m talking about right here.
A. That’s a general statement in response to the previous comment.
Q. Okay. About the pathway?
A. Right.
Q. That–and the pathway has to do with the Range and Lipsky matter, correct?
A. But the second part of the sentence–
Q. Just answer my question, please.
A. The pathway in this sentence has to do with Range–
Q. All right.
A. –proving their pathway.
Q. Look at the next sentence, 5:
“The EPA has the authority to say the gasholes have to prove the pathway. YAY!”
A. Right.
Q. You’re talking about the Range pathway.
A. Any pathway.
Q. So you’ve changed again–
A. No.
Q. –back from Range to the industry as a whole, correct?
A. Right. I’m using the Range case to illustrate my point that industry needs to bear the burden of proof.
Q. All right. So you’re not concerned about making a defamatory comment about Range?
A. I don’t believe I’ve made a defamatory comment about Range.
Q. Okay. So when you say “gasholes,” you’re not talking about anybody at Range.
A. It’s–it’s a common term used for the industry.
Q. All right. Look at the next page then in the second full paragraph. Do you see where you say, “And I’m still laughing about Range and their reputation.” Do you see that?
A. All right. Uh huh.
Q. What do you mean, “laughing about Range and their reputation?”
A. Well, because Range doesn’t have a very good reputation with landowners.
Q. Okay. The ones you deal with, anyway?
A. Right.
Q. You don’t deal with all the landowners that have production by Range, do you?
A. No.
Q. Okay. The next sentence, you say, “That’s just precious.” And then you say, “Maybe if they”–and you were talking about Range here, correct?
A. Right.
Q. –“had not been such gasholes.”
A. Uh huh.
Q. Now, there you’re talking about Range, correct?
A. Un hun.
Q. What is that–what does gashole mean?
A. It’s just–
Q. It’s a derogatory term , isn’t it?
A. Right.
Q. All right. “Maybe if they had followed some of the ordinances, maybe if they hadn’t dumped their sewage in our backyard”–
A. That’s a general statement.
Q. –maybe if they hadn’t–if they actually treated people fairly, maybe. But that’s not the case. Range is just a smidgen about Aruba.”
A. Above, yeah.
Q. What does that mean…”Range is just a smidgen about?”
You mean “above?’
A. Above, uh huh.
Q. So you have a bad feeling about Aruba Petroleum?
A. They’ve been a pretty bad operator in our area.
Q. So you put–you put Range just a smidgen above them, correct?
A. Maybe not. Maybe on par.
But that’s what I said there.
Q. All right. Well, in this instance, about–about their operations and about being gasholes, you’re talking about Range in this instance, correct?
A. Right.
So, there you have it, Dear Readers. Through skillful cross examination, Albon Head got me to admit that in one instance on my blog I called Range Resources gasholes.
Happy New Year.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
If they don’t like being referred to as gasholes then maybe they need to quit acting like gasholes. Their whole operation is morally and ethically bankrupt.
Personally I think you were going light on them but when you are going for a G rated blog you have to make some concessions.
Happy 2014 Sharon!
Thank you for yet another excellent post and being the amazing, integral, courageous, feisty, honourable Texan that you are.
This made me chuckle: “Top 10 stories of 2013: Kids faced gag order, plus Matt Damon’s fracking movie”
Range Resources, Matt Pittzarella et al must be delighted to get so much excellent press coverage – finding themselves in the Top 10 no less!
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2013/12/31/top-10-stories-of-2013-kids-face-gag-order-plus-matt-damons-fracking-movie/
Below a few of my favourite frac things of 2013:
Post: http://www.texassharon.com/2013/09/15/is-there-a-media-blackout-on-the-fracking-flood-disaster-in-colorado/
Stats: 90,000 facebook likes to your above post
Web page: http://www.frackingcanada.ca/fracking-rocky-view-county/
Rocky View County surrounds large part of Calgary
Letter: Open Letter to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers from B.C. Tap Water Alliance
“I respectfully request that the Association apologize, in writing, to all Canadians for falsely stating that there has never been a documented/proven case of hydraulic fracturing contaminating groundwater.”
http://www.bctwa.org/FrkBC-CAPPLetter-Sept10-2013.pdf
Here’s a toast to you Sharon and others courageously speaking out about harm caused by this bullying, punitive, lying, arrogant, heartless, polluting industry and to many more frac secrets and movies coming out!!
jessica
Happy New Year dear one.
Thank you!
i sit here still shaking my head that Range Resources (Mr. Peter Miller) suggested – in writing – that their subcontractor frac with human bodies – worker bodies.
Does that get filed under making criminal threats or terrorism?
Has OSHA been notified?
“The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) was passed to prevent workers from being killed or seriously harmed at work. The law requires employers to provide their employees with working conditions that are free of known dangers.”
https://www.osha.gov/workers.html
If we had said anything even close, can you imagine what might happen?
“Does that get filed under making criminal threats or terrorism?”
Well I think that all depends on if the “duty of care” is to the public.
If there’s a duty of care to the public (for example, like Alberta’s Energy Regulator says they owe) then It probably won’t be filed if it only involves one person, because it seems one person is considered private (according to Alberta’s Energy Regulator ) and one private person is not the public – and there’s “no duty of care” if they consider you a private, at least in Alberta.
I know you’re probably familiar with this, It’s like when you go out in public – because the regulator considers you a private – you probably aren’t allowed to use the public restrooms, go to a public park, or partake in any public activities, since there’s just one of you, which apparently is considered private by the regulator.
I’m not really sure how many people have to accompany you, for you to be considered part of the public, but I’m sure somehow, somewhere, someone is working on that.
Happy New Year Neighbour, looking forward to your appeal!
http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/the-lawsuit
The funny part is, long after the depo, he probably still doesn’t get it. Yep, it’s real head scratcher, trying to figure out how the term Gashole came into the lexicon. Or Oilfield Mafia. Um, those stickers are on the back windows of half your fleet, dipshit. And I always thought the Bar was supposed to be difficult. Apparently, they just pass the damn things out like coupons.
The very next thing he asked was about the psyops. You have to empty your bladder before reading that exchange. I’ll try find a way to work that into something soon.
Oh Sharon…perhaps Albon just didn’t understand the words and needed help understanding. Ha! Boy that got nowhere fast what a waste of everyone’s time (well except the attorneys…they’re getting paid). Keep up the great work!
Present at the deposition where several attorneys, a court reporter with real-time transcription, a videographer and some attorney assistants for their side. When you consider all the shareholder money they spent investigating me, at the hearing and deposition and the money they are still wasting paying someone to read this blog everyday it’s a significant waste of resources.
“Plan B? Start frac’ing with the bodies of Red Oak employees?”
Now where would Range ever get an idea like that?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mamma-mia-how-he-squealed-screaming-mafia-boss-francesco-raccosta-fed-alive-to-pigs-by-rival-calabrian-assassins-in-bloody-mob-war-8972184.html
I’m tired of the “monkey see monkey do” attitude, I think another Homeland watch list is in order … especially if there are Plans C, D, E and F.
Happy New Year Sharon, thanks again for all your hard work and sacrifice!
I continue to admire your courage, strength and ability to get the truth out there in the face of all the bullying, arrogance and ignorance.
“In contrast to the EPA guidance concerning emergency orders, the RRC needed definitive proof that a direct source was causing the contamination in order to take action. When we asked staff/officials of the RRC what sort of evidence RRC required to determine if a direct connection existed, they told us that they did not know.”
http://www.texassharon.com/2013/12/24/breaking-inspector-general-report-justifies-epa-in-parker-county-fracking-intervention/
Here’s to a year of truth and justice, to you my friend, and to all the courageous families who continue to refuse to be bullied – and are marching the truth out for the world to see!