I thought it was the 11th but either way I like your enthusiasm....

I thought it was the 11th but either way I like your enthusiasm. I must say I too feel we should be okay but who really knows with the likes of this DERM calling the shots, I honestly think they and the Qld Government should be ashamed of themselves for the way they've handled this. It truly appears they just don't have a clue and they're desperately trying to make things up as they go along, after all it was clear from the "So called Specialist Expert Panels Report" that all 3 trials were not on the same page and this was a result of unclear guidlines (basically incompetence by the DERM) by DERM.

Quote taken from this report:

"All 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". (Of which you can read in this report were not, so really who should be shouldering some of this blame?? (Yes DERM/QLD Goverment)
You don't just shut someone down without giving them the opportunity to rectify any short falls etc... especially if you're not totally to blame. How many companies in history have had environment distaster of a magnitude that far outways this one and Cougars and have been given the opportunity to continue trading?? (That's right heaps!!)

In relation to this report and Cougar I've noticed that I feel there were other areas that showed not only the DERM but also this expert panel really were not up for the job entirely on their own as it appears to have called upon the likes of Origin Energy for various opinions of which I belive is somewhat of a major conflict of interest given their involvement in CSG (Competing industry) and even their opinions couldn't be taken for certain as detailed in this report (Just so many uncertainties and unanswered questions in this report, I urge everyone to read this report several times, there are so many flaws, it's if this and if that, uncertainties everywhere).

I can't believe they have to rely on a company of whom has a conflict of interest (Origin Energy) for their modelling data of which I did notice the expert panel had not received at the time of release! I was under the impression that Carbon Energy has their own modelling data (CSIRO) but I suppose they wouldn't really want to share this with others, Especially their competors (Cougar).

Apparently the report stated the site selected was not suitable:

Quote:The local hydrogeology indicates considerable
underground complexity and potential for preferential flow
of groundwater. This information was contained in the consultant?s report that was available to Cougar Energy (and
therefore potentially to government) at the time of approval. 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.

I'd like to know if this information was available and known by the Government (DERM) then why did they let this go ahead in this location in the first place???? DERM needs it's backside kicked big time and should stop passing much of it's own short comings onto Cougar and Carbon (Again they should be made accountable for many of these issues as they should be answerable not just Cougar, and Carbon but it's very typical of regulators to come down heavy handed for things that they had more controll over in the first place. (Government Departments are notorious for buck passing and this ones no different).

I could sit here all day detailing the short comings of Government Departments and pick out all the holes in this report etc... but I really have things I have to do.

All I'll say in a nutshell is this is not one sided like the DERM would have us believe and it's been extremely unfair on Cougar and Carbon.

Cheers