For the first formula, we seem to have:
\begin{gather*}
|\mathbf{D}| = |\Omega|\tau_1^2\tau_2^2\cdots\tau_q^2, \\
\therefore\ \log|\mathbf{D}| =
\log|\Omega| + 2\log\tau_1 + 2\log\tau_2 + \cdots + 2\log\tau_q, \\
\therefore\ \frac{\partial\log|\mathbf{D}|}{\partial\tau_g} = \frac2{\tau_g}
\quad (g = 1, \ldots, q).
\end{gather*}
For the second formula, let $\mathbf{b}^{\mathrm{T}} = (b_1, \ldots, b_q),$ and
write $\Omega^{-1} = (c_{hg})_{1\leqslant h \leqslant q, 1 \leqslant g \leqslant q}.$
That is, for $g = 1, \ldots, q,$ let the $g^\text{th}$ column of $\Omega^{-1}$ be $(c_{hg})_{1\leqslant h \leqslant q}^{\mathrm{T}}.$
After a page of messy calculation, I arrive at the formula:
$$
\frac{\partial(\mathbf{b}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathbf{D}^{-1}\mathbf{b})}{\partial\tau_g} =
-\frac{2b_g}{\tau_g^2}\sum_{h=1}^q\frac{b_hc_{hg}}{\tau_h}.
$$
In its dependence on $\tau_g,$ the expression
$\mathbf{b}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathbf{D}^{-1}\mathbf{b}$
determines a function $f \colon \mathbb{R}_{>0} \to \mathbb{R},$
where
\begin{align*}
f(\tau_g) & = \mathbf{b}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathbf{D}^{-1}\mathbf{b} \\
& = \mathbf{b}^{\mathrm{T}}\operatorname{diag}(\tau)^{-1}
\Omega^{-1}\operatorname{diag}(\tau)^{-1}\mathbf{b} \\
& = \left(\frac{\mathbf{b}}{\tau}\right)^{\mathrm{T}}
\!\Omega^{-1}\left(\frac{\mathbf{b}}{\tau}\right).
\end{align*}
Here, for the sake of brevity, I have written:
$$
\frac{\mathbf{b}}{\tau} = \left( \frac{b_1}{\tau_1}, \ldots,
\frac{b_q}{\tau_q}\right)^{\operatorname{T}}.
$$
Probably the most sensible way to prove the result is by applying the
Chain Rule to the decomposition $f(t) = \beta(\alpha(t)),$ where
$\alpha \colon \mathbb{R}_{>0} \to \mathbb{R},$ $t \mapsto b_g/t,$
and $\beta \colon \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R},$ $x \mapsto (\mathbf{a}
+ x\mathbf{d})^{\mathrm{T}}\Omega^{-1}(\mathbf{a} +
x\mathbf{d}),$ where $\mathbf{a} = (b_1/\tau_1, \ldots, 0, \ldots,
b_q/\tau_q)^{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\mathbf{d} = (0, \ldots, 1,
\ldots, 0)^{\mathrm{T}}.$ Such a proof only requires
differentiating a quadratic function of $x$, and it has enough
structure to inspire a feeling of confidence in the result.
Personally, however, I still prefer a more advanced proof, using only the
familiar formula $\frac{d}{dt}\frac1t = -\frac1{t^2},$ in
conjunction with general results about the Fréchet derivatives of
linear and bilinear maps. This gives the final formula more
directly, but it requires careful handling, in order to avoid
creating thickets of LISP-like nested parentheses (as in my original
"messy" handwritten proof). Although it probably can't be recommended
objectively, I can't resist giving it here. The function $f$ is
expressed in quite a simple way as a composite of four functions,
\begin{gather*}
f \colon \mathbb{R}_{>0} \xrightarrow{\alpha} \mathbb{R}
\xrightarrow{\gamma} \mathbb{R}^q \xrightarrow{\delta} \mathbb{R}^q
\times \mathbb{R}^q \xrightarrow{\epsilon} \mathbb{R}, \\
\alpha(t) = \frac{b_g}t \quad (t > 0), \\
\gamma(u) = \mathbf{a} + u\mathbf{d} = \left(\frac{b_1}{\tau_1},
\ldots, u, \ldots, \frac{b_q}{\tau_q}\right)^{\mathrm{T}}
\quad (u \in \mathbb{R}), \\
\delta(x) = (x, x) \quad (x \in \mathbb{R}^q), \\
\epsilon(x, y) = x^{\mathrm{T}}\Omega^{-1}y,
\quad (x, y \in \mathbb{R}^q).
\end{gather*}
Clearly,
$$
\gamma(\alpha(\tau_g)) = \frac{\mathbf{b}}{\tau}.
$$
By the usual rules of differentiation for functions
$\mathbb{R}_{>0} \to \mathbb{R},$
$$
\alpha'(t)(k) = -\frac{b_gk}{t^2} \quad (t > 0, \ k \in \mathbb{R}).
$$
Because $\gamma$ is the sum of constant and linear mappings,
$$
\gamma'(u)(s) = s\mathbf{d} \quad (u, s \in \mathbb{R}).
$$
By the Chain Rule,
$$(\gamma \circ \alpha)'(t) = \gamma'(\alpha(t)) \circ \alpha'(t)
\quad (t > 0).
$$
That is,
\begin{align*}
(\gamma \circ \alpha)'(t)(k) & = \gamma'(\alpha(t))(\alpha'(t)(k))\\
& = \alpha'(t)(k)\mathbf{d} \\
& = -\frac{b_gk}{t^2}\mathbf{d} \quad (t > 0, \ k \in \mathbb{R}).
\end{align*}
Because $\delta$ is linear,
$$
\delta'(x)(v) = \delta(v) \quad (x, v \in \mathbb{R}^q).
$$
Because $\epsilon$ is bilinear and symmetric,
\begin{align*}
\epsilon'(x, y)(v, w) & = \epsilon(x, w) + \epsilon(v, y) \\
& = \epsilon(x, w) + \epsilon (y, v)
\quad (x, y, u, v \in \mathbb{R}^q).
\end{align*}
By the Chain Rule,
$$
(\epsilon \circ \delta)'(x) =
\epsilon'(\delta(x)) \circ \delta'(x)
\quad (x \in \mathbb{R}^q).
$$
That is,
\begin{align*}
(\epsilon \circ \delta)'(x)(v) & =
\epsilon'(\delta(x))(\delta'(x)(v)) \\
& = \epsilon'(\delta(x))(\delta(v)) \\
& = \epsilon'(x, x)(v, v) \\
& = 2\epsilon(x, v) \quad (x, v \in \mathbb{R}^q).
\end{align*}
By the Chain Rule again,
$$
f'(t) = (\epsilon \circ \delta)'(\gamma(\alpha(t))) \circ
(\gamma \circ \alpha)'(t) \quad (t > 0).
$$
That is,
\begin{align*}
f'(t)(k) & = (\epsilon \circ \delta)'(\gamma(\alpha(t)))
((\gamma \circ \alpha)'(t)(k)) \quad (t > 0, \ k \in \mathbb{R}).
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
f'(\tau_g)(k) & = (\epsilon \circ \delta)'
\left(\frac{\mathbf{b}}{\tau}\right)
\left(-\frac{b_gk}{t^2}\mathbf{d}\right) \\
& = 2\epsilon\left(\frac{\mathbf{b}}{\tau},
-\frac{b_gk}{\tau_g^2}\mathbf{d}\right) \\
& = -\frac{2b_gk}{\tau_g^2}\epsilon\left(
\frac{\mathbf{b}}{\tau}, \mathbf{d}\right) \\
& = -\frac{2b_gk}{\tau_g^2}
\left( \frac{b_1}{\tau_1}, \ldots, \frac{b_q}{\tau_q}\right)
\Omega^{-1}\mathbf{d} \\
& = -\frac{2b_gk}{\tau_g^2}
\left(\frac{b_1}{\tau_1}, \ldots, \frac{b_q}{\tau_q}\right)
(c_{1g}, \ldots, c_{qg})^{\mathrm{T}} \\
& = -\frac{2b_gk}{\tau_g^2}\sum_{h=1}^q\frac{b_hc_{hg}}{\tau_h}
\quad (k \in \mathbb{R}).
\end{align*}
To conclude, here are the remaining details of the more "sensible"
(although in my opinion less intuitive) proof that was outlined
earlier. By the Chain Rule (it is no longer expressed in terms of
Fréchet derivatives, of course):
$$
f'(t) = \beta'(\alpha(t)) \cdot \alpha'(t) \quad (t > 0).
$$
We have already differentiated $\alpha,$ thus:
$$
\alpha'(t) = -\frac{b_g}{t^2} \quad (t > 0).
$$
We can also easily differentiate $\beta,$ because it is a quadratic
function. Using the symmetry of $\Omega,$ we have:
\begin{align*}
\beta(x) & = (\mathbf{a} + x\mathbf{d})^{\mathrm{T}}\Omega^{-1}
(\mathbf{a} + x\mathbf{d}) \\
& = (\mathbf{d}^{\mathrm{T}}\Omega^{-1}\mathbf{d})x^2 +
(\mathbf{d}^{\mathrm{T}}\Omega^{-1}\mathbf{a})x +
(\mathbf{a}^{\mathrm{T}}\Omega^{-1}\mathbf{d})x +
\mathbf{a}^{\mathrm{T}}\Omega^{-1}\mathbf{a} \\
& = (\mathbf{d}^{\mathrm{T}}\Omega^{-1}\mathbf{d})x^2 +
2(\mathbf{a}^{\mathrm{T}}\Omega^{-1}\mathbf{d})x +
\mathbf{a}^{\mathrm{T}}\Omega^{-1}\mathbf{a}
\quad (x \in \mathbb{R}),
\end{align*}
therefore
\begin{align*}
\beta'(x) & =
2(\mathbf{d}^{\mathrm{T}}\Omega^{-1}\mathbf{d})x +
2(\mathbf{a}^{\mathrm{T}}\Omega^{-1}\mathbf{d}) \\ & =
2(\mathbf{a} + x\mathbf{d})^{\mathrm{T}}\Omega^{-1}\mathbf{d}
\quad (x \in \mathbb{R}).
\end{align*}
But
$$
\mathbf{a} + \alpha(\tau_g)\mathbf{d} = \frac{\mathbf{b}}{\tau},
$$
therefore
$$
f'(\tau_g) = -\frac{2b_g}{\tau_g^2}
\left(\frac{\mathbf{b}}{\tau}\right)^{\mathrm{T}}
\!\!\Omega^{-1}\mathbf{d},
$$
the same expression that emerged more transparently from the other proof.