Expert OpinionThe superficially plausible 'runoff theory' has been carefully and open-mindedly examined and strongly rejected in the first Mosher Report. It was certainly not rejected 'out of hand' as our pet misrepresents it. It is the considered expert opinion of an independent professional geologist with many years of experience who has visited the property and not 'management's interpretation'.
There is no evidence to support the 'runoff theory'. If our pet has some evidence then lets see it. Post it here for us all to read and evaluate. Or show us where Mosher is wrong. Give us some facts instead of making statements like:
'If one believes management's interpretation (LoL) the highly plausible and logical alternative of contaimination via runoff from the nearby deposit must be rejected out of hand.'
This statement misrepresents the facts, is misleading and untrue. It does not logically follow that if you accept Mosher's arguments that you reject 'out of hand' ie without consideration opposing views. Look for the facts and arguments supporting the opposing views, consider them and then make up your mind.
Mosher's report is on the PLY website, read it for yourselves posters. Examine the facts, think the arguments through.
Owl