ombudsman scathing over coal burnoff, page-28

What you are failing to realise is that the report says the previous Government made a poor decision in giving clearance for a project where it was located. Therefore the previous years findings that the company could not garauntee no environmental damage (despite not causing any) is gains validity. It also invalidates the company's finding that this is a good site for the usage of UCG. The previous report also stated the company lacked in house technical expertise and failing to identify the unsuitableness of the site (if it was indeed always unsuitable right from the begnning) seems to suggest a lack of in house technical expertise.

To put extremely simply the finding of the report is that the site is comprimised before any technical work was undertaken and both the company and the Government were not qualified to make a good assessment and therefore should not continue operation in future.

You all seem to be celebrating that the logical conclusion of an independant finding which is the plant remains shut indefinitely. This is contrary to my senitment.