Skip to main content

View Diary: What Exactly is in Dilbit? It is a Secret. (242 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ernest... how good are technicalities (17+ / 0-)

    at dealing with the exigencies and residual consequences that arise? The extractive industries consider that type of thinking to be liberal and do-gooderish.

    So while everything you have noted is factually accurate... the soil, the processes occurring therein, the chemicals, etc... the residual consequences are squashed.

    As Agathena notes in the diary and others have stated... and you yourself bring it to the conversation... these big companies intend to conduct their business as it suits them with no interference from the government's stewardship or the landowners and communities.

    Big Oil's right to the black oil sucked from the bowels of the earth outweigh the right to water and its necessities of life. All across this country and the world... our dwindling water resources are contaminated and destroyed.

    They shut down independent analysis and research which could yield benefits to their business in the long run when we discover how to better deal with these chemicals.

    Instead, it's their way or the highway because they are ultimately authoritarian bastards who want to rule the roost without too much trouble.


    A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.

    by bronte17 on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:51:09 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You're partly right and partly wrong (0+ / 0-)

      and partly opaque (but maybe that's just how I interpret your language).

      I've made no secret about calling for stricter regulation of these industries, including extractive industries that use techniques such as hydrofracturing.

      But you're incorrect when you state that "they shut down independent analysis and research which could yield benefits to their business in the long run when we discover how to better deal with these chemicals."

      That's not true.  Here's a (probably feckless) diary in which I discussed an example of how these industries have paid millions to independent university researchers to address one of the most difficult contamination problems, dense non-aqueous phase liquids.  Similar investment has been made when dealing with floating hydrocarbon (light nonaqueous phase liquid) remediation, largely through member companies into the American Petroleum Institute.  

      Like it or not, some of the leading experts in how to deal with these problems have earned that expertise by working for, or by having their research paid for, by the very companies we're talking about.

      •  And you know that universities are not the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Agathena

        lily white knights in shining armor that we all presumed them to be when we were children.

        I worked in environmental law and have seen a little bit of everything from Environmental "Protection" Cabinet manipulations (my words are kind) to universities putting its weight behind egregious behaviors.

        Follow the money ain't just cheap talk.


        A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.

        by bronte17 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 11:24:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rather than admit you were wrong (0+ / 0-)

          You just spew ongoing insults.

          Thanks.

          Springing off the example to which I directed you, please provide evidence that the work of the University Consortium, paid for by industry, did not move the science of DNAPL fate, transport, and remediation ahead significantly; providing substantial improvement in how we deal with these complex problems.

          I'll make it easy for you: you can't.  Because it has helped. Tremendously.

          I'm sure it's intellectually easy for you to simply smear by association.   It's a very popular past time among some self-declared "environmentalists" around here.

          Yep. Guilt by association.  Easy peasy. Joe McCarthy, at least, thought so.  

          •  Ernest... where were the insults (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ernest T Bass, Agathena

            spewed?

            Granted, I referenced work that is personally familiar to me and did not followup on your reference. But, that is hardly "spewing ongoing insults." Some/many universities are in fact captured by industries and it does no one any good to pretend otherwise. And, it should be apparent that if I were gunning for a fight with you... I would have picked your reference apart. But, I did not do that.

            Furthermore, none of my comments have been made with ill intention toward you. In fact, I acknowledged that your technicalities added to the discussion.

            I realize this was a difficult diary for you because the flames came out down the thread... but that wasn't my intention. So, ixnay on the McCarthy mudslinging. It's beneath you.


            A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit.

            by bronte17 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 01:50:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  An over-reaction (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bronte17

              I get tired of being accused of being the bad guy because I happen to understand that these things are not as simple and black and white as some seem to think, and that the reality may be that evil industry sometimes (perhaps grudgingly) does the right thing.

              I was springing off of your "white knight" comment and more directly off the "follow the money" comment, because I interpreted "follow the money" to be shorthand for "dismiss everything anyone who has ever worked for or accepted money from industry has ever done."

              Which is more or less the apparent opinion of some folks around here.

              Since I evidently was wrong with that interpretation, I apologize.

              And I misunderstood your comment carried over from your original comment title (hence my "opaque" statement). I thought you might be dismissing stuff such as facts and well-supported science as "technicalities," but I wasn't quite sure what you meant.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site