SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: bentway who wrote (831506)1/21/2015 11:55:21 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1577894
 
Does this help you, Dave? Once an aquifer is contaminated, it may be unusable for many, many, years. And the EPA says your WRONG about oil not contaminating water tables.

Don't be too harsh on Dave. In the beginning of this discussion, he thought they fracked the water out of the rocks...........had no idea that an aquifer contains pools of water.

The sad part of this pipeline expansion is we could easily live without it. But Rs loves anything that hurts the environment and helps their corp masters so they will fight diligently to get it built.



To: bentway who wrote (831506)1/22/2015 1:03:44 AM
From: i-node  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577894
 
>> And the EPA says your [sic] WRONG about oil not contaminating water tables.

It wasn't me saying it. It was the absolute authority on the subject related to the specific aquifer in question.

The EPA, of course, is not a reliable commentator on the matter. Having been involved in the cleanup of "contaminated" real estate in the past I'm familiar with the nonsense.

But staying on topic, the point is that this particular aquifer cannot be contaminated by oil from a spill on the surface. To put in terms used by the expert on the subject, it is a "physical impossibility."

I'm not just trying to argue with you; just suggesting that you may want to make yourself a little more informed before you run off at the mouth.