Sign Up for Santos, page-48

The Guardian was seeking support at the end of the report. I would like to support if it publishes less articles that have a title such as "... Could ... If ...". All speculations and assumptions, one can put anything in between.

I actually did the EIS (groundwater portion) for the WHC's Maules Creek Coal Mine. What I want to point out here are that (1) all the major concerns in the article should have been addressed in the EIS report in accordance to government guidelines; (2) EIS is the very preliminary period of a project, there is normally no detailed design on process plant etc (the key thing is that there are strict conditions for mining and these conditions have to be met during the mining period); and (3) the lecturer cannot make his shot straight: at the beginning, he argued whether or not the project area was the recharge area of the **, but later his client said (the areas) 'have little rain water'. If you know the **, you should know 99% of its recharge is from QLD.

At the end, it's all about politics. Nothing worries me in that article, apart from politics. BTW, the cost of the EIS report is roughly $5-$10 million, the lecturer's consulting fee should be less than $5k.