The 7-Page Letter

This seven-page letter (1.2MB pdf), is NOT a hydrogeological report by any stretch of the imagination. (Here's the EPA's 1999 opinion on how these things should be done. Is it really good enough to sit at a desk and assess these things?)

It is a letter. It even calls itself a letter. A letter whose "Subject" is Initial Hydrogeological Investigations. Think of an email... Not a report. Its supposed place in the chronology of events is contradicted by its contents. And URS were not commissioned to complete an initial hydrogeological report in compliance with Permit Condition 24; they were commissioned to provide hydrogeological advice. 

Can we see the commissioning document?

These and many more issues will be raised and elaborated upon on this page in coming installments. 

In the meantime, please do familiarise yourself with the letter's contents. There's not too much to take in.

And also please consider the issues below.
 
This so-called report by URS (Letter 16/12/2005, Project No. 43270625.05005) had as its “main objective” merely “to summarise the information collected to date in regard to the hydrogeological and hydrology and assess the impacts of dewatering of the Augusta deposit on the environment” [emphasis added]. No objective to actually conduct their own information-producing processes to discover contemporary conditions prior to dewatering. Just summarise others' findings.

The conclusion (if one can call it that) was that the “basement aquifer is at least partially confined”. 


What does “at least partially” mean? Twenty percent? Seventy percent?

Even ‘totally’ is covered by the phrase “at least partially”, is it not? 

But so is ‘barely’...

A sentence is basically meaningless when its negative imparts the same information. Please compare "at least partially confined" with its opposite, "at least partially unconfined". Can you spot the difference?

Meaningless uncertainty.

Oh and information collected revealed that the creeks in the area are all ephemeral. Except the Wappentake Creek. It flows most of the year. Keep this in mind for later discussion.

But the scientific uncertainty... 

And they went ahead and dewatered anyway.