Subject: Submission #126, Issue #1 - Wooloowin Worksite Modification 
         Application for Project Change

David, Hi.

I refer you to the CNI document "Wooloowin Worksite Modification Application 
for Project Change - Response to Submissions".

Submission #126, Issue #1 on p211 of this document refers to the discrepancy
on p38 of the "Wooloowin Worksite Modification Request for Project Change" 
- also a CNI document.  The issue explicitly states: "This is not possible and 
requires explanation".

The Report Reference for for this submitted issue refers to the CNI response 
in section 5.2 / Issue 1 on p10 of the "Response to Submissions" CNI document.

In this response, Section 3.1.2 of the Wooloowin RPC is explicitly referred
to.  It is worthy of note that Section 3.1.2 of the Wooloowin RPC refers to 
Figure 3-1 which contains the two graphs contended in Submission #126, 
Issue #1.

The CNI response states that "This survey data (as shown in Figure 3-1 of the 
Wooloowin RPC) was appropriate for that purpose.". 

That may be, however, this statement does not address the specific, relevant
and very key issue raised in regard to the discrepancy referred to in the two 
graphs on p38.

Submission #126, Issue #1 drives right to the heart of Section 3 "Reason for 
Proposed Change" for the Wooloowin Worksite as put forward in the "Wooloowin 
Worksite Modification Request for Project Change" CNI document.  The truth 
underlying this issue is key to the validation or annihilation of the claim 
for the proposed Wooloowin Worksite.

The Community has had this particular issue on notice since July 17 2009.  CNI 
have had plenty of time to adequately investigate and respond to this issue.
CNI have also been aware of the importance of the resolution of this issue to 
the Community and the entire Wooloowin Worksite.

David, you indicated that the "anticipated" geological conditions graph was 
provided by BrisConnections and TJH.  What process did you undertake to ensure 
correctness and validity of this graph in combination with the more recent
"actual" geological conditions?

David, why have you not answered the specific question raised in Submission 
#126, Issue #1 in regard to the "actual" and "anticipated" graph discrepancy? 

David, putting aside your claim that CNI are not subject to RTI, why have you 
not released Borehole Log APL06 to the Community to facilitate resolution of 
this issue?

Best Regards,

Greg.