Really. REALLY. That was their "argument"? The timing of the...

Really.

REALLY.

That was their "argument"?
The timing of the BOPL "sale" and whether it was a sale or a contingent sale agreement?. EVERYONE here was talking about the JOA terms and how "tight", "water tight", "strong" etc they were. I don't think the company EVER specified this was the rationale behind the SAT hearing. In fact they said they were operating with NO JOA in 2013 and that's why they were funding everything.
Back in 2012 though, they said they believed BOPl were in breach or their commercial undertakings with OBL and they intended to pursue their rights. Back at the start of 2013 they said they and BOPL had entered into "binding MOUs". That's not the same thing.

Looks like the posters here took those initial statements (which are always going to be worded strongly) and extrapolated out into thin air because MOU's aren't legally binding, by definition they are what you agree to when you aren't or can't getting things legally binding. Hell, even I thought they had more lead in their pencil than this. I don't get why they wouldn't have come to an agreement before this given the weakness of the case. I get that the case and the MOU's were ok leverage in ownership discussions, especially against a weak partner.. it's not all pure hot air, but man. This was not a good game of chicken. Know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.

The case had nothing to do with anything that was spoken about here.. it was just whether you were allowed to go into a contingent sales agreement for something you're going to get and when you have to inform the minister responsible about the change in ownership.

Three quarters of a year and ~1.2M in ADMINISTRATION COSTS for THAT.

They could have done a lot of their share of seismic for that.