IMO....from this statement by Ed...I would assume that the...

IMO....

from this statement by Ed...I would assume that the recommendations by NOPTA for BOTH Applications is - APPROVAL.

"I have carefully considered all material submitted by Asset Energy Pty Ltd and formed a preliminary view that the applications should be refused."

WHY does Ed need to say " I have carefully considered " - why not make reference to NOPTAs reports? - because - he cant. He cant refer to NOPTAs report cos NOPTA has assessed ALL details as submitted by Asset and have made a recommendation to the JA. The JA does NOT want to follow this report..... so just like last time - Scummbo precedent - Ed has decided to assess the submissions made by Asset by 'himself and his department(s?)'.

Is he also claiming the First Principles or similar type of reference to undertake his own assessment.

I thought the whole set up of the OPGGS Act (ie NOPTA) was to prevent this exact same type of scenario from happening? - politics and votes 'buying' were to be left out of these decisions... otherwise there is NO reason for NOPTA to exist.

DB + Lawyers - you need to move quickly and 'legally' and reply back to the JA with detailed rebuttal. AND we need to know what these questions are that Ed has sent through via either an RFI or NOIR.... (what instrument has he used????)