On 8/12/2014 5:58 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 8/12/2014 1:13 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "ImStillMags" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:38:06 AM UTC-7, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>> If you aren't a PR rep for the mining inudustry you are in the wrong
>>>>>
>>>>> business.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was about to ask if he was employed as a propagandist for the
>>>> industry,
>>>> you beat me to the thought.
>>>
>>> He's good, I'll give him that.
>>
>> I've done my research, measured the costs and benefits and arrived at
>> win/win thinking.
>>
>> Nothing in this discussion need be either/or...even nuclear.
>>
>> It all depends on how good the planning and execution is.
>>
>> And how robust the oversight is.
>
> OK Einstein, tell me how much it would cost to remove 2,526,480,000 cubic
> feet of toxic sludge.

Off the top of my head?

I haven't a clue.

Have you?

> That is the volume of the pond that burst. How much
> will that cost in man-hours, equipment and fuel. And where will you haul it
> off to where it can be safely sequestered for eternity?

It's not nuclear, so why " for eternity"?

Have you half life data to share?

> Now let's consider the proposed Pebble Mine. The tailing pond for that one
> will need to be 6000 acres in area and 700 feet deep. That is 3/4ths the
> size of the island of Manhattan and as deep as the Empire State Building is
> tall. What liner technology would you propose?

I'm no tailing pond design expert, but I'd think that successive layers
of bentonite, membrane, more bentonite, more membrane, gunnite, etc.
would be worth looking at.

Oh, and one whopping big French drain system around the entire thing to
feed into a series of smaller containment ponds should a breach below occur.

And that is extemporaneous, no googling.

Or...what would the expense be of drilling several thousand feet deep
into a confined geologic stratum and mapping it for non-transmissability?