Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (32934)	7/2/2012 11:51:41 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86352

In the oil industry, we had "evaporation losses" which I think were often enough not so much actual evaporation as liquid losses to a bit of swindling. In a 40,000 litre delivery, 100 missing litres isn't much. With all that exposed coal, some "evaporation" would be likely. Coal is less dense than railway ballast [stones] so it won't "clog" the tracks. It will float on top and fill interstices doing no harm. It would more likely help than reduce effectiveness of the foundations of the tracks. But the amount landing there would be insignificant I guess. It might even stop weeds growing because it's not a good source of minerals for roots. Imagine growing crops in coal dust. I wouldn't fancy your chances. Mqurice