Ann: June 2016 Quarterly & Appendix 5B-STX.AX, page-126

I'm a geotechnical engineer and I work in civil construction in Melbourne and I have a lot of experience with errors in sampling, inaccurate tests, dodgey labs giving made up results, good labs making mistakes, samples being unrepresentative of what you are ment to be testing the works. It's all pretty normal when your working with something as variable as geology and trying to make assumptions about a large area on few tests, samples etc

I understand it's basically a PDF of data they have paid a contractor for and the data was wrong. But I find it scary and dosn't give confidence when expensive business decisions are made on incorrect data. They may have been lucky this time (we will see) but I think the criticism is fair.

I dare to say maybe 20% of the structural engineers in the construction industry are clueless, either because they use outdated practices, or they don't actualy understand what they are doing. Luckily there are so many safety factors in so many places that they never get found out and they simply get away with it. Let's hope strike can get away with this one.