Time to do a deal, page-28

" EVERYONE here was talking about the JOA terms and how "tight", "water tight","

I know I openly apologised for saying there was a JOA,when there wasn't, so I dont know where you've got the everyone from.
Again why not correct errors,as they occur instead of getting a collection of errors together and building a mountain out of an ant hill,in relative terms.

I had emailed a leading oil & gas lawyer in Perth prior to logging on to hotcopper this morning,I got a reply,regrettably the person is on sick leave and not taking on any more work,I trust the person gets well quickly.

I said I wont comment on the decision until,I'm in a more knowledgeable position to do so,and that is still my position.

You mention a game of chicken,well bru baulked ,which while neither here or there in the scheme of things (OBL wise),it may point to a more rigorous legal opinion obtained by the other party concerned.
Which leads me to my question to Neil,and I'm paraphrasing, " did you get third party legal advice", " yes we did " was the reply.
As I posted here on HC, I probably should have pushed it further,with,was it paid legal advice?"


Again I commend you to read a post of mine late last year,where I said,(again paraphrasing)," if it was me ,I would get several opinions including a contrary opinion."

SAT decisions can be appealed ,meanwhile,I'm looking for another suitably qualified lawyer,to critique the decision .

Your second to last sentence,may have held true,if we only had the Canning asset ,however much work has been done on the Gippsland assets,in making them more marketable.
Which if you go through my posts,you will find a consistent tone, the SAT decision was out of managements hands,in relation to the outcome,while the sale of the Gippsland assets ,and the finding of a farminee for the Canning,is very much in managements hands.
The above latter two items will be how I judge them on,at this stage,though this could alter,with some as yet unknown (to me any way)information.

Raider