I think that an arguement to stay construction would need to be...

I think that an arguement to stay construction would need to be based on evidence of clear and present danger ,not some vague "you cant do your job properly"
The powers understand the claims and reasons behind it.
The NRDC had better have a bank of experts to repudiate the official experts.
We have overcome crap before and I am confident this will be overcome again. Govt panel without clear evidence..what else could they have that they havent used before????
That would be catastrophic to most similiar projects existing now and the future.
Just because you claim something an injuction isnt always granted. The possibility of costs, lost production for unproved claims would expect to be very high and hopefully possibly retrieveable???