planning and environment court proceedings, page-14

Ok I have read the judgement now. http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2011/QPEC11-150.pdf

The reporting in the Warwick Daily was misconstrued the judgement. The Judge did not note "that there is no "safe" concentration level for benzene in drinking water."

The made a general observation about some evidence presented by Brad Glynne.

"Before continuing further, it is worth making a brief observation about the contaminant benzene. In Mr Glynn’s affidavit, behind Tab 26, is a Queensland Health briefing note dated 17 September 2010. It says in respect of benzene:
“Benzene is a human carcinogen with a drinking water guideline value of one part per billion. However, the Australian drinking water guidelines 2004 also state that there is no safe concentration of benzene in drinking water. The guideline value of one part per billion reflected in the limit of quantification achievable in 2004. The Queensland Health organics laboratory can now achieve a limit of quantification of zero per one part per billion.”"

The Paper cherry picked this and quoted it out of context.

And far from "Slamming" Cougar he suggested that the case they have against the government is arguable and that the government's counsel did not dispute this.

"It is impossible at this stage to make any meaningful assessment about the prospects of Cougar’s appeal. However, it appears to me that it could not be said that the appeal was not arguable. It is significant in this regard, I think, that Mr Gibson QC, senior counsel for the respondent, did not contend otherwise."


In my reading I would say that basically the judge decided that in his view the decisions would not mean that Cougar had to shut down its operations prior to its appeal and that it in any event it would be prudent for the work on rehabilitation, especially planning to be undertaken regardless of whether the appeal is successful and therefore there would be no harm to Cougar by disallow the current stay.

Once again newspapers present a biased view. I could not see on criticism of Cougar.

If anyone has a different interpretation I would be interested.