 |
Re: Toxic cleanup must come before freight
Author: Capdiamont
Date: 05-09-2009 - 07:58
"Aren't these are the same people NCRA proponents criticize for,
guess what, enforcing environmental laws?
Then when the business plan (submitted to a state agency)
of NWP is cited regarding the amount of mining that would
occur, well, we should ignore that too. NWP Co. was just
filling the pages.
"
You can't seem to keep track of anything. The criticism of the enviro's and AG, is simply that where is the money to so so. If they cared to get the cleanup done, why not seek the money to do so. Which leaves what is their real mission, to shut the railroad down.
The mining part is simply up to that amount, it must address this possibility, otherwise environmentalist will be crying foul, that it doesn't. Now, any mining must pass, all environmental reviews, all the laws, be bonded to cleanup the property when done, survive any lawsuits, survive all environmental groups. There will be a long public process to do so, instead people were wanting to shut it down, before the case is made, or the public has a chance to review it. In effect due process is short circuited.
Lets examine another aspect. Where is all the gravel/rock going to come from, with all urban/near mining is hotly contested, due to traffic, noise, dust/other pollution. That leaves rural areas, or out of county, such as Canada, or Mexico. How environmental is it to haul gravel such long distances? Canada has good environmental laws, I'm sure, but Mexico?
Now saying were are asking you to ignore parts of the business plan, is like saying there is secrets of the railroad, simply false. What are you expecting us to do, a Jedi mind trick, saying, "no you don't need to remember the business plan.". While doing a flourish, of a hand? It is simply a part of a discussion, that we bring up various aspects.
guess what, enforcing environmental laws?
Then when the business plan (submitted to a state agency)
of NWP is cited regarding the amount of mining that would
occur, well, we should ignore that too. NWP Co. was just
filling the pages.
"
You can't seem to keep track of anything. The criticism of the enviro's and AG, is simply that where is the money to so so. If they cared to get the cleanup done, why not seek the money to do so. Which leaves what is their real mission, to shut the railroad down.
The mining part is simply up to that amount, it must address this possibility, otherwise environmentalist will be crying foul, that it doesn't. Now, any mining must pass, all environmental reviews, all the laws, be bonded to cleanup the property when done, survive any lawsuits, survive all environmental groups. There will be a long public process to do so, instead people were wanting to shut it down, before the case is made, or the public has a chance to review it. In effect due process is short circuited.
Lets examine another aspect. Where is all the gravel/rock going to come from, with all urban/near mining is hotly contested, due to traffic, noise, dust/other pollution. That leaves rural areas, or out of county, such as Canada, or Mexico. How environmental is it to haul gravel such long distances? Canada has good environmental laws, I'm sure, but Mexico?
Now saying were are asking you to ignore parts of the business plan, is like saying there is secrets of the railroad, simply false. What are you expecting us to do, a Jedi mind trick, saying, "no you don't need to remember the business plan.". While doing a flourish, of a hand? It is simply a part of a discussion, that we bring up various aspects.
