Yes, I eventually watched the entire replay of the pre-hearing conference.
Without trying to absolutely pre-empt the final outcome. IMO there is now way this petition will succeed in doing any more than cause the slight delay it has.
My summary view:
As an outcome Pugsley issued a "NOTICE OF REQUESTED CITATION" and I am now certain it relates to groundwater protection and the restoration bond. The lawyer for Viviano tried to add in that the bond "may" be insufficient in the event of an excursion. Pugsley on more than one occasion argued this point strongly citing the case in this recent notice. He was clearly very well prepared, I could not say the same for the rather inadequate display from Viviano's lawyer. see my post at http://hotcopper.com.au/post_single.asp?fid=1&tid=1639135&msgid=9426495
It is the elevation of the Viviano property that the (environmental) judge so gently put it to the lawyer for Viviano that causes water to flow down, not up as it would need to if in the unlikely event an excursion occurred.
He went into a lot of detail to demonstrate how there would be no impact on the property as far as UG and surface water were concerned.
Strata hardly saying a word in the opening and the NRC judges doing the claimant no favours by displaying their own evidence presented. Pugsley's case was made very easy. That said apart from the environmental judges comments and discussion on presented evidence there was no apparent bias displayed.
Apparently she also travels a lot and uses ALL of the access roads EVERY day according to her lawyer. That and her claim is ridiculous in the extreme regarding dust issues as the road has been used for years by her and the few other property owners and accessed by other operations over the years with no demonstrable impact.
It was clear to me that there was also no demonstrable impact on the claimants property in regard to UG water, water runoff, lighting.
The light aspect was thrown in for good measure I am sure. From 16kms away all she MAY see is a very dull glow on the horizon.
Her laywer speaking of the MANY oil and gas fields in the area both past and present shot himself in the foot IMO. Listening to the NRC judge (environmental scientist)explaining the plugging and abandonment process and regulatory requirements simply closed down the argument of impact on her water wells through migration from Strata's proposed activities.
The claimant also tried to put up that Strata has not adequately addressed any potential cumulative aspects. It was during this that the NRC put up that this project is most likely going to expand significantly. I toook it that the additional permitting would cover these aspects and it wasn't relevant as far as this application was concerned. The NRC and Pugsley also commented this was a "guidance" note of the GEIS process and not a regulatory requirement.
I found the NRC very supportive of Strata and they defended the review and approval processes in place.
The admin judge closed without giving anything away. He stated the judges response, or reason they can't pass judgement, would be given toward the end of January. Date was given but I just can't recall it exactly.
Pugsley in closing re-stated the claimants case regarding the restoration bond should not be considered as it wasn't a part of the claim and he again cited the test case precedent. The Admin judge requested he cite via notice of which he has now done.
IMO Purd, this has no chance of success and will not delay the issue of the permit any further than it has. Spudman put it perfectly in a post on the day "Just been listening to the first 30 mins or so and to me it comes across as this lady is clearly looking for some $$$ compensation." I could not have said it better than spudman and I am sure the 3 judges heard what we did.
On to the next supposed hurdle. PEN sure has had their fair share and shareholders along with it. It will make the final reward taste even sweeter. No surprise Alf Gillman saw fit to top up post this hearing.
