Which is true Mr Lukas?
Date: 13-Dec-08
Author: Peter Firminger
In the initial Wollombi Hall meeting, the chair of the meeting stated that the people of Wollombi were confused by mis-information in the community and that the meeting was to sort out the confusion.
So why are people (and your shareholders) confused?
Here's a clue... the messages coming out of the Sydney Gas Ltd publicity machine are conflicting! E.g:
The unsigned Sydney Gas Propaganda Sheet of Friday October 10 says:
"Various coal seams intersected by a core hole may be tested for permeability. Permeability is an important factor in determining if a coal seam is suitable for natural gas recovery. The greater the permeability of a seam the better the natural gas may flow.
At this core hole permeability is being tested by pumping approximately 5500 liters [sic] of water into the coal. Sensors then test the rate that the water pressure in the coal drops during a 24 hour period. The way the water pressure drops can indicate the permeability."
Yet the Scone Advocate quotes "Sydney Gas publicity officer Elizabeth Flaherty" as follows:
"But Ms Flaherty said even if gas was found at these sites it would need to be tested for permeability as they could not use gas that had water in it."
So which is it Mr Lukas? They can't both be correct.
Is the gas tested for permeability to check the water content as Ms Flaherty was reported to have said to the Scone Advocate, or the coal seam tested to estimate the potential flow rate of the gas within as the unsigned Sydney Gas Propaganda Sheet indicates?
As CEO you can decide and make the appropriate repairations.Your reply will be published below. I await your prompt written response and an online retraction of whichever is in error. Mr Harper has my correct email address.
Peter Firminger
Update 20 December:
I apologise if Ms Flaherty has been offended by my airing of her apparent mistake in The Advocate but I am flattered that she apparently thinks that what I say on this little website can influence her career path to the point that she engages a lawyer to threaten me.
Clearly she has a long future with Sydney Gas Ltd and will soon be given a real sydneygas.com email address (or at least an alias address) to show her stated position in the company rather than her personal email address currently published on SGL material. I wish her good luck in her future.
I would however advise her to check her facts (and news copy) with the company before making personal statements to the press. If she was indeed in error and a subsequent retraction is posted on The Advocate website, I WILL link to it and give her due credit for honourably sorting out the issue. However, if she was correct, then someone should say so in answer to the above and retract the (in that case misleading) Sydney Gas information to all who received it.
A note for the lawyer: Your emails are ending up in my junk mail folder, probably due to them being (invalid) HTML emails with a totally unneccessary PDF attachment in combination with no SPF record in your DNS and the use of totally invasive "read receipts" that I consider a breach of privacy. While I am without a fax machine due to a lightening strike and with my need to recently lower spam t
