RE: CEC aquifer mapping biased and feasibility unl mokita you said, "you need to read opposition scientific reports more carefully and avoid the big lie which is repeating the same phrase that lacks any scientific support".
I'm going by the work that the scientists have done per the Raven website on hydrology and aquifer testing in 43 different locations since 2009.
If there's scientific work that has been completed by another independent scientific group, you should forward it to Compliance and ask that their scientists to either accept this new data and include it in the EIS Guidelines, or shoot it down as insignificant.
I'm not a scientist so I don't qualify. This is up to professional individuals to either dispute or prove their on-site evaluations and collection of data, IMO.
Good point you could bring up in the upcoming public comments period. I wouldn't expect any of the qualified scientists that have worked on this project to be posting here, FWIW.