that address the companies' right to NOT produce and pay royalties.

As far as the flaring goes, as interesting as the premise of suing for loss of royalties goes, I wish them good luck. I grew up near where those flares burned night and day. It was said to be a safety measure, a normal part of production.

We shouldn't have to industrialize every inch of the world - and those who have not grown up with lung burning crap - may not know what I am talking about. There are always health and environmental damages caused by industrialization. The people who benefit, but escape the blight, like getting consumer goods from the alleged third world countries, just put those blinders on.

The reason I say 'alleged' and 'blinders' is we have always had third world conditions in this nation. Starting with plantations, share cropping, sweat shops and even those 'good paying jobs' we think are great for the 'working class.'

Being done gradually, or routinely on sacrosanct 'private property,' the public becomes used to and accepts it. The class warfare aspect is seen openly, but relegated to the same place as angels and fairies, or people are told that 'that's just the way it is' and the world needs it.

Racism plays a large part in making it invisible, and perceptions of the poor in general, as if they deserve living under those conditions.

This reminds me of the thread on some ranchers in that region who had voted teabag and also had supported a federal government shut down, then complained about the shut down that was causing a disaster for them financially from a natural calamity.

The pain is no less for those in other parts of the country when a Bain company created a man-made calamity. We are going to have to get past the 'us versus them' thinking. We're all part of the whole, and to survive we must have empathy for the paths that others go upon.

The shock of what living with heavy industry to some, clearly not all, in rural areas is percieved as a contrast. They have seen their role as part of the biosphere producing life in terms of food and such commodities.

Then they are forced to see what the other half or tenth of humanity has endured as their part of creating their bucolic existance. The oil for vehicles and tractors, the steel, plastics, rubber and chemicals they use on the farm came from somewhere.

In some communities they know this well, in others, they still claim to be protectors of nature. I suspect that is how this is going to be framed for our audience as liberals.

Rural life in itself is not easy, either. Except for absentee owners who play with subsidies to enrich themselves and live elsewhere. They don't care about the ecosystem they own on paper, anymore than a oil company cares about the environment or people where they extract or refine their product.

These were once seen as the 'adults,' the 'job creators' while those with environmental, labor or healthcare concerns were seen as hippies, socialists, crybabies or simply naive.

I wonder how many at first glance thought this was going to be a victory for living things, rather than a dispute over who gets what percentage of money by stealing air, soil and water quality for generations.

Now with fracking and other practices, we see a portion of the land and its people treated the same way oil producing states and their people have been treated over a century. I wonder if there are feedlots in that area, contributing to air, land and water pollution.

Still, it's an interesting lawsuit, whether the intent is more money in the same mindset as the oil patch owners, or to save living things, IDK.

Sigh.