The papers and data sets from Boehrer (2018) and Schmid 2019 are not yet nearly sufficient to throw out all others. Their method used lacks well-proven validity over the depth range assessed as it was never previously calibrated for the depth or concentration of gas. u003cbr/u003eThe method will require repeated surveys over multi-year intervals in order to establish either that there is a trend, or lack of any trend. u003cbr/u003eFurther cross-referencing is important in order to establish Schmid’s hypothesis and claims of no-growth in the resource. u003cbr/u003eUncertain measurement, including ~6% plus/minus data range uncertainty, along with any of a number of equipment failures in other measurement methods used from 1937 to 2004, could result in similar variances. i.e under-reporting or over-reporting is possible in any of the data series. u003cbr/u003eSimilar measurement and calibration problems, including failure to account for sample leakage and temperature change, may well have compromised other tests. It is therefore way to soon to make or justify the conclusions put forward by Schmid, which have far-reaching consequences if correct.u003cbr/u003eFurther, if accepted, the data suggest that methane is disappearing from the deeper resource zones. It was up to now common cause that the Main Gradient act as an impenetrable barrier to gas diffusion from below to above the gradient. u003cbr/u003eOnly gas extraction or some form of organic consumption of methane could show otherwise. Neither seems likely nor is either proposed to account for a disappearance of methane. One or more set of measurements must be in error for such a thesis to stand, and Schmid is curiously selective on which data he proposes to ignore.u003cbr/u003eThere are several scientific issues to consider, but the key references are: u003cbr/u003e • Every report on the gas concentration surveys from 1937 to 2019, which references are appended to the panel report and the MPs (up to 2004)u003cbr/u003e • The 1st Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed).u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThis finding of Schmid would effectively throw out all work done on Lake Kivu in the past and have all parties having to reset 83 years of past scientific work and measurement, his included. The physics, chemistry, microbiology, limnology, hydrology, geochemistry and other papers on gas extraction written on the subject would need to be withdrawn or re-written to support his hypothesis. u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThe MPs would need to be re-written to account for a static or declining methane load, and perhaps the carbon dioxide inventory too. The gas extraction methods actually still need to be the same to preserve the lake safety.u003cbr/u003e u003cemu003eOru003c/emu003e, we could check the measurements, past and present for errors.