<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Preliminary Analysis of FracFocus.org Data</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ienearth.org/preliminary-analysis-of-fracfocus-org-data/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ienearth.org/preliminary-analysis-of-fracfocus-org-data/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2013 22:04:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maureen Milledge</title>
		<link>http://www.ienearth.org/preliminary-analysis-of-fracfocus-org-data/#comment-69</link>
		<dc:creator>Maureen Milledge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ienearth.org/?p=550#comment-69</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you for this!
I just read in an Esquire blog, that Exxon is arguing that it doesn&#039;t have to pay for the latest oil spill because, technically, the bitumen isn&#039;t oil. Although it&#039;s a little off you area of expertise, do you think this argument makes any sense?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for this!<br />
I just read in an Esquire blog, that Exxon is arguing that it doesn&#8217;t have to pay for the latest oil spill because, technically, the bitumen isn&#8217;t oil. Although it&#8217;s a little off you area of expertise, do you think this argument makes any sense?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>