Comparing apples with apples, page-9

OK, so they've based there calculations of flow on 867.5m of test trench consisting of 14 trenches of varying lengths and depths (bit of an issue with testing various lengths and depths!). But more of an issue, for me at least, is how they have calculated the average flows. You can't take one 20 metre trench that flows well and multiply it's result by 50 to get a kilometre and assume that the same conditions will exist along the entire extrapolated trench length. The top of page 2 of the report even suggests that the results should be treated with caution because of high flowing patches that may or may not continue in a uniform fashion.

But here's the clincher for me...I think the correct methodology would be to take a weighted average of the trench metres and determine the flows from that. And what do you get when you calculate it for m3/hour/50m trench.....1.63!!! Close enough to AMN for me to say the same, makes sense given the geographical proximity, and is mathematically sound.

Not to mention why do they suggest that they will "need about 50km operating at any one time"? That's 1/4 of what AMN is suggesting but if the flow rates where accurate they'd only need 1/8th?

I'm not trying to pick on RWD, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of something that does not make sense to me.