I have read some of their past decisions. I didn't get the...

I have read some of their past decisions. I didn't get the feeling of any bias. They are mostly scientists and lawyers, who are trained to resist bias.

My feeling is that the easiest way for them to refuse something is where it's clear the proponents have not provided detailed evidence of their claims -- i.e., they have not produced reams of detail on every issue, paid lots to consultants, have left something major out, or in some way refused to play according to the proper rules of the process. I don't think that applies here - you can see how engaged RRL has been all all the issues from the documentation.

The second reason to know something back is if there is a substantive risk of harm. It feels like the issues are Aboriginal heritage, dust, noise, flora and fauna impact and water impact. Based on the agency submissions, it looks like all except water impact are not major issues.

The water is a tricky one because if there is harm to agricultural production, then that undermines the economic benefits. The economic benefits have to be unquestioned -- if that side of the ledger is uncertain, then there are big problems.

The first water issue is failure of the TSF, it being full of cyanide and a watercourse going right through the mine site and all. But it would be hard for the IPC to knock that back given all the evidence that the TSF will be secure. They might insist on extra monitoring or something like that.

The other water issue is this one with water entitlements. You kind of get the feeling from the corro that RRL has missed something here. Potentially could be a problem as the Carcoar dam is for agriculture and drinking water, and, you know... drought. Also, there appears to be some unpredictable legal interpretation issue about how to calculate water rights - messy.

I am keen to read RRL's response on this to understand it better.