Ann: Arbitration Update, page-168

Cosmo & Sojourner,

Forgive me initially for this canine analogy but what you are both saying isthat the ICC decision could amount to this:

Nice dog FAR, yes you had the right to the big Kennel rather than sleepingoutside during the last 3 years, but seeing as the kennel was too big fora small dog anyway, here's a pat & a bone, now run along and bury it!

The 30 day period was for FAR to exercise their PE rights which FAR claimthey were unable to do as COP withheld information for them to make a fullvaluation and thus a decision on whether to match the terms of the COP/WPLdeal.

There was no 30 day period in which FAR had to prove they had finance tocomplete a deal.

Woodside took 3.5 months to complete the deal with COP (mid July - end Oct2016)

No one can retrospectively make a determination as to whether FAR were ableto arrange finance in 2016 & complete a deal with COP.

I don't believe the onus is on FAR to prove their capability, or not, to closea deal with COP in 2016.

Once again - it's about rights and the loss of value that comes with thoserights.

This from the AFR 8 June 2017:

We haveseen estimates that a successful defence of its claim to pre-emptive rightscould be worth about $500 million for FAR. And there would appear to be severalways for FAR to skin that value cat here.

If, forexample, a court were eventually to find that it did, indeed, own rights overWoodside's 35 per cent, FAR could complete that deal by simply exercising itscall and then on-selling all or part of the interest at a price that reflectsthe upgraded resource.
................................................................................................................................

No pyrrhic victory here - if FAR wins, substantialcompo is warranted!

.