terms of reference, page-2

You're not wrong there Factfinder, It's the first thing I picked up on when reading the "So called specialist expert panels report", this report is fraught with several unsubstantiated insinuations, fraught with unsubstantiated personal opinions etc? which should never have been allowed to be printed unless they could be backed by scientific evidence or fact, and in my opinion did not have enough accurate substance or wrong doing on Cougars part for the DERM to shut them down but I must say anyone who has read this report would agree, it did disclose how unprofessional the DERM has been from the outset and it should be them who should be answerable in more ways than all 3 trials!!!

The panel themeselves even stated they had difficulty in making an assessment of the implications of the Environmental Evaluations due to the lack of sufficient baseline information and so on.

They also admitted that not all trials had the same baseline monitoring requirements or minimum conditions and basically said this should have been the case.

Now I'd like to know WHY??? WASN'T the DERM doing their job properly in the first place because right from the outset uniform requirements & conditions should have been set in place and continually monitored by the DERM, and as we can read in this report, it's clear this was never the case.

2. CONSIDERATIONS
2.1. Environmental issues
So the DERM is liable here in my opinion after all they are the ones who should setting the guidlines aren't they otherwise what do you expect?

In the same section there were statement used such as Quote: "It is not possible", to be certain of this because no isotopic signatures of the benzene or toluene were reported.

"It is unknown", whether pollution of the soil/regolith on
the path between the chamber inlet and the bores occurred.
No benzene or toluene was detected in surrounding bores and water systems following extensive survey conducted by DERM.

"In all three", pilots more attention should have been given
to obtaining appropriate base line data (see section 3.3?
monitoring).

"For valid environmental comparisons, all three trials should have had similar compliance conditions within their EAs."

"The current situation is that Cougar Energy has had a failure of infrastructure. Understanding the causes of this failure is important, and obtaining this understanding should be an essential part of the pilot study."

With reference to the statement made above, yes this is obvious, if it's considered a trial then they should have been allowed to "UNDERSTAND IT", and be given the opportunity other businesses would have been granted and this is to correct things had it been proven to be of a breach/risk etc...etc... (Which was clealy not granted, so why not???)

There are a few more statements in this section that start with "It is possible", meaning they're not quite sure!!


Take a look at this statement made in the expert report:

"The fact that the possible existence of an explosion has yet to be confirmed or ruled out"
(NOW HOW CAN IT BE FACT, WHEN IT HASN'T BEEN CONFIRMED!!)

"Whilst infrastructure compromise is the most convincing explanation, detection of benzene and toluene in separate
bores in different aquifers remains unexplained."

In reference to the above statement, it maybe the most convincing but it's not fact!! If they are experts why can't they explain what it is they're looking at, after all they made "Condescending" remarks about Cougars ability to detail and their comments were "difficult interpret".
Well frankly I find it difficult to understand why Cougar has been dealt with in the manner in which it has because I find the the detail and interpretation of this report to lack clarity and enough fact to close them down but at the very least it shows both parties DERM and Cougar need to try much harder to "Collaborate" for the good of everyone involved, not just saying this has been too hard we don't want to do this anymore, we can expect this sort of mentality from children but even then try and teach them to move forward with a collahorative approach. (Or at least we should be!!)

More uncertainty from the report (No facts, hypotheses are exactly what they are and something you'd exptect from a University Lecturer, not saying we don't need them but just saying it's not a solution or definate proof!! Along with this they say " none are very convincing" well firstly I don't want to be "convinced" I want hard proof!!):

"Even though various hypotheses have been put forward none are very convincing. Other transport mechanisms and pathways, therefore, cannot be entirely ruled out."

Did they get an answer to this question?? Or did they answer it themselves earlir when they basically said the DERM should have all 3 trials on reporting on the same page??? Don't we have regulators in concills and Governments to make sure things are constructed etc... under cirtain guidlines and aren't they same for all of us?? Or aren't we all created equal?? A few of these deptarments spring to mind "Town Planning" oh yes they've been doing their job properly too (Not!) look at the recent flood problems! The DERM, oh yes they've been doing their job properly (Not!) look at they way they've handled Cougar Energy!!

Well guys what was the answer, did we investigate it after all if it was worth putting in the report it must have been worth investigating I think. Or was it just one of those times "Hindsight is truely a great thing isn't it??"

"It is unclear why the trial was not located in a more simple hydrogeological setting, which was available not too distant from the existing site."

The expert panel using another commercial entities data to explaing something they clearly don't have a handle on themselves and the fact that this entity has a major conflict of interest plus nothing they presented was exactly relevant as you can see once having read this section of the report:

No true relevant facts that were applicable to Cougars opperation or UCG. So why bother?? Look at several of these starting sentences contained in this section:

"The details of the Origin groundwater modelling"

"It is unknown from the presentation"

"If the former, then" (Lot's of if's and unknowns in this report)

"If modelling was extended to other connected aquifer systems then the information may be of assistance in assessing pressure impacts on UCG in those connected systems."

"Without the Origin modelled data it is difficult for the ISP to assess the impact of pressure decrease from CSG on UCG."

I'm sorry but I'm worn out there are so more flaws and unanswered questions in this report that any Judge or Jury in his or her right mind wouldn't have enough evidence to close Cougars operation down and I believe they'd have a bit to say about DERM and this so called panel Frankly!

I wanted to write so much more but I've got so much to do and so little time to do it today.

I hope they get legal advice becuase from what I can see this report and the DERM are a joke!!!

Cheers


trials
should
have
had
the
same
initial
baseline
and
monitoring
requirements
and
minimum
conditions
for
Environmental
Authorities
(EAs)
should
have
been
in
place
and
been
as
consistent
as
possible
across
the
trials