Comments on: Garfield County formally opposes Rulison ‘Path Forward’ http://www.indenvertimes.com/garfield-county-formally-opposes-rulison-path-forward/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=garfield-county-formally-opposes-rulison-path-forward INDenverTimes provides news, insight, perspective and information for Denver and Colorado Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:00:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: cristy koeneke http://www.indenvertimes.com/garfield-county-formally-opposes-rulison-path-forward/comment-page-1/#comment-11995 cristy koeneke Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:42:19 +0000 The concept that the radioactive gas is trapped in what was molten rock is incorrect. By the DOE's own admission it is unsafe to drill in Lot 11, the 40 acre tract where the bomb was detonated. There are questions of safety by independent experts (Dr. G. Thyne of CSM and U of Wyo), who believe the radioactive contamination was pushed out into the fractures that were produced by the affects of a 43 KT nuclear explosion. The Office of Legacy Management who oversees the sight, can only speculate, also called 'guess', as to where the radioactivity may be--drilling and hydrofracturing in this area can open pathways to the surface and to the water sources in this alluvial valley which serve population areas downstream of the site. Given these possible adverse affects, why would anyone take risks associated by any mineral development in this area, when there is a glut of gas for the taking in areas without the serious adverse affects of nuclear byproducts. The concept that the radioactive gas is trapped in what was molten rock is incorrect. By the DOE’s own admission it is unsafe to drill in Lot 11, the 40 acre tract where the bomb was detonated. There are questions of safety by independent experts (Dr. G. Thyne of CSM and U of Wyo), who believe the radioactive contamination was pushed out into the fractures that were produced by the affects of a 43 KT nuclear explosion. The Office of Legacy Management who oversees the sight, can only speculate, also called ‘guess’, as to where the radioactivity may be–drilling and hydrofracturing in this area can open pathways to the surface and to the water sources in this alluvial valley which serve population areas downstream of the site. Given these possible adverse affects, why would anyone take risks associated by any mineral development in this area, when there is a glut of gas for the taking in areas without the serious adverse affects of nuclear byproducts.

]]> By: Cliff Farris http://www.indenvertimes.com/garfield-county-formally-opposes-rulison-path-forward/comment-page-1/#comment-11953 Cliff Farris Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:12:49 +0000 The understanding at the time was that the improvement in gas flow from the blast was too low to justify the cost of the explosive device. Economics killed the path forward. Someone, a true genius if ever there was one, decided to test the gas from the well BEFORE the blast. Natural radioactivity was significantly above background and totally safe. The radioactivity after the test was not significantly greater. The radioactivity from the blast was trapped in the melted rock in the cavity formed. Let us follow all the facts. The understanding at the time was that the improvement in gas flow from the blast was too low to justify the cost of the explosive device. Economics killed the path forward.

Someone, a true genius if ever there was one, decided to test the gas from the well BEFORE the blast. Natural radioactivity was significantly above background and totally safe.

The radioactivity after the test was not significantly greater. The radioactivity from the blast was trapped in the melted rock in the cavity formed.

Let us follow all the facts.

]]>