environmental harm, page-9

If you look at the June quarterly from last year you’ll find this statement, which is about 9 months old:

“Over the coming months, Linc Energy will be actively re-engaging with the Queensland Government to ensure the approach to decommissioning at Chinchilla is robust and that the exploratory work to further investigate the concluded gasifiers is completed in a timely and same manner.”

Then there was this comment in the “Chinchilla decommissioning” Ann (3rd Sep):

“The Queensland Governments ISP made the proving of a successful UCG gasifier shutdown the key step required to be fulfilled prior to approval of a commercial UCG gasifier in Queensland.” The gasifier being shutdown in that Ann is the Gen 3. So There's your refrence to the "older tech"

9 months is the timeline given by the DEHP, so it fits that this environmental damage has something to do with the decommissioning of gasifier 3. Presumably the Company will work out what went wrong (if anything) and will address the issue before the ISP makes it's final determination. I can’t see this becoming a major problem - unless it's political. If the Govt. wants CSG, not UCG, then finding a problem with the shutdown is the most logical way to stall the aproval of any UCG project. They can point to their own ISP then and lend weight to their own pre-determined argument (lovely). And they can come up with anything!

For all we know the cavity might not be the right size and shape, which would be considered “serious environmental harm”. There’s nothing to point us in the direction of a water table problem. In fact, given the DEHP said there’s no threat to neighbouring water bores, it’s likley that the issue is with ash samples or some other menial thing.

Read those two anns again. You'll get a better idea of how all this has come about in my opinion.

It all sounds very political.